Allowed

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/1367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania and Jyoti Rajwani, in CA No. 1367 of 2024, set aside the bail rejection order and enlarged the appellant Sunil Singh on bail in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections, noting similarities to a co-accused's bail order.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Sunil Singh discharged on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard additional conditions; lower order set aside.

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37445

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1367 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sunil Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Appellant :- Randhir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Despite service of note upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant appeal.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2107 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow.

¶9

Vide order dated 08.05.2024, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 2355 of 2023 filed by co-accused Urmila Singh and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.05.2024 reads as under:

¶10

"4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.08.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 6206 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow.

¶11

5. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 01.08.2023, learned counsel for the appellant stated the applicant has been falsely implicated by the the respondent no. 2 (complainant), daughter of Police Officer namely Indrajeet Arya, presently discharging his duties at Police Station - Indira Nagar, District- Lucknow, by lodging an FIR on 20.05.2023 making therein allegations to attract the offense under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

¶12

6. In continuation, he further submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that the entire story is false and concocted and this story has been framed only to create pressure in relation to the proceedings initiated by the appellant by preferring an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 2917 of 2023 (Smt. Urmila Singh Vs. Indrajeet Arya) in which final order was passed on 16.08.2023 and in compliance thereof, the FIR has already been lodged against Indrajeet Arya, a police officer and father of the respondent no. 2 (complainant). In the FIR, the appellant has levelled specific allegation that Indrajeet Arya had committed rape with the appellant.

¶13

7. He further submitted that the amount alleged to be provided to the appellant and her husband for getting job at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Institue of Medical Sciences (in short "RMLIMS") on the post of Lab Technician has been indicated to the tune of Rs. 11,26,690/- in the FIR also proves that the FIR is completely false and concocted as a police officer namely Indrajeet Arya would not be in a position to transfer/provide such a huge amount and if it is correct then he has conducted his duties of unbecoming a police officer.

¶14

8. It was also submitted that if this story of providing an amount to the tune of Rs. 11,26,690/- for

¶15

securing job is correct then in that event, this police officer namely Indrajeet Arya is liable to be prosecuted for adopting corrupt practice for securing job for his daughter by initiating criminal proceedings as also departmental proceedings.

¶16

9. He further submitted that on account of an FIR dated 03.08.2021 against the appellant, the father of the informant Indrajeet Arya, being Investigating Officer (I.O.) came into contact with the appellant and thereafter in relation to the same, Indrajeet Arya created pressure and also tried to outrage the modesty of the appellant, as would appear from indecent WhatsApp chat, which is on record as Annexure No. 7 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.01.2024, and in relation to the same once he called upon the appellant and outraged her modesty and in relation to the same, the FIR has been lodged in terms of the order dated 06.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2917 of 2023.

¶17

10. He further submitted that the informant in the FIR has indicated that she met with the appellant in the month of February, 2022 at RMLIMS and the appellant assured to provide a job on the post of Lab Technician on payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- but this fact is completely false as would appear from Receipt No. 5329 dated 06.01.2022 (Annexure No. 3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.01.2024) signed by the Director, RMLIMS, which finds name of the informant and her father.

¶18

11. It was further submitted that to support the allegations levelled in the FIR, the informant placed the bank transactions between 01.02.2022 and 30.04.2022 and a perusal of the bank statement which is on record as Annexure No. 5 to the supplementary affidavit would show that the amount so indicated in the FIR does not appear from the statement of the account.

¶19

12. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 22.07.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶20

13. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶21

14. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶22

15. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the allegations levelled against Indrajeet Arya, father of the informant and WhatsApp conversation between the appellant and Indrajeet Arya, father of the informant, and the amount indicated in the FIR and the bank statement and the age of the appellant as also the period of incarceration and Section 437 of Cr.P.C. also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶23

16. The order dated 01.08.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 6206 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow is set aside.

¶24

17. Let appellant Urmila Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶25

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶26

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶27

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶28

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally

¶31

or through counsel.

¶32

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶33

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

18. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶35

19. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶36

20. Before parting, in view of specific stand in the FIR that Rs. 11,26,690/- was provided by Indrajeet Arya, father of the informant who is a police officer, to the appellant for securing appointment on the post of Lab Technician in RMLIMS, which amounts to seeking appointment by unlawful means and/or in other words seeking appointment by giving bribe, and WhatsApp message on record as Annexure No. 7 and contents of Annexure No. 6 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.01.2024, this Court is of the view that the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Director, Vigilance, U.P. Establishment, Lucknow should know these facts for the reason that police officer is supposed to act as a member of disciplined force and not in a manner which appears from the record.

¶37

21. Accordingly, the Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to provide a copy of complete paper book alongwith the certified copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Director, Vigilance, U.P. Establishment, Lucknow, respectively, who shall do the needful, if required in the matter.

¶38

22. Learned A.G.A. for the State is also directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Director, Vigilance, U.P. Establishment, Lucknow."

¶39

Taking note of the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Urmila Singh and he has been languishing in jail since 22.07.2023 accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2107 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

¶40

Let appellant, Sunil Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶41

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶42

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶43

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶44

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶45

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

¶46

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶47

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶48

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶49

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶50

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶51

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶52

Order Date :- 16.5.2024

¶53

Jyoti/-

¶54

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Dharmaraj Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 8 Others

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ilahi Vs State of U.P.