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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53535

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1377 of 2022

Appellant :- Rajesh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Dr.Surya Prakash Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶8

As per report of the office dated 13.09.2022, which has been endorsed on the basis of report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar of date 12.07.2022, respondent no.2 has been served personally/sufficiently, however, she is not represented.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellants/ Rajesh and Fudal for grant of bail and to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.685 of 2022 (Rajesh and another Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.0239 of 2019, under Sections 323, 224, 352, 354(kha), 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(VA) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants while pressing this appeal submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶12

It is further submitted that an incident of simple maar-peet has been given the colour of sexual assault while no such incident had taken place. There is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R., which has not been explained. The injuries, which are shown to have been sustained by the victim, may not be the result of any quarrel and if the same is taken on its face, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., general allegations have been levelled against all the

¶13

accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants. Identically placed co-accused persons namely Jitendra and Dinesh have been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2022.

¶14

It is also submitted that appellants are not having any criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the appellants may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellants on the ground that the appellants have committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the appellants, they are not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶16

Considering the facts that identically placed co-accused persons namely Jitendra and Dinesh have been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, no specific allegation has been levelled against the appellants, the injuries sustained by the victim allegedly in the incident are simple in nature and the appellants are not having any criminal history and the appellants were also granted interim bail vide order dated 10.06.2022 and nothing has been brought before this Court, which may suggest that the appellants have misused the liberty granted to them, I do not find as to why the facility of bail may not be extended to the appellants, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has erred materially in passing the impugned order and same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the court below is set-aside and the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed .

¶17

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellants- Rajesh and Fudal involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The appellants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellants and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Anupam S/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjeet Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Another

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Shakeel and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Chandrika Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Guddu @ Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another