Allowed

Anoop Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal and set aside an order rejecting bail. The court held that specific allegations of using a country-made pistol by the appellant were made in the FIR but only general allegations were found in the victim's statement, justifying release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.01.2022 rejecting bail is set aside. The appellant (Anoop Saxena) is released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding att

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4827

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 141 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Anoop Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Roshan Babu Gupta,Ajai Kumar Singh,Chandra Prakash Singh,Nadeem Murtaza,Prabhat Rathore,Shobhit Singh,Vaibhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar,Laxmi Mohan Khare

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 06.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2021; for releasing appellant in aforesaid case crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and there was cross cases lodged by members of both the parties against each other. He further submits that F.I.R. No. 115 of 2021 U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was lodged from the appellant's side against four persons and F.I.R. No. 114 of 2021 U/s 147, 323, 504, 506 and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(2) (v)-A of SC/ST Act was lodged by informant against appellant and others. He further submits that members of both sides received injuries in the alleged incident and general allegations have been leveled against all the accused persons. As per the prosecution case, informant claiming himself as eye-witness stated that appellant along with other co-accused persons beat Nitesh Kumar and others with the butt of the country-made pistol as such injured persons received grievous injuries. During the course of investigation statement of Nitesh was recorded, in which, he made general allegations against all the accused persons and no specific averment was made by him about the fact that appellant and others caused injury with the butt of country-made pistol. He further submits that charge-sheets were submitted by Investigating Officers concerned in the present case and in the case which was lodged from the side of appellant. He further submits that trials of cross cases are to be conducted in the same court as in the present case. He further submits that cognizance

¶9

was taken by learned trial court U/s 326 I.P.C. also in addition to the offenses mentioned in the charge-sheet. He further submits that appellant is in jail since. 15.12.2021, but till today charge has not been framed. He further submits that appellant was also implicated in two other cases, later on, he was implicated in the offense related to gangster act without any proper evidence and he is on bail in all the cases. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order passed by learned trial court is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant. They jointly submit that after detail investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer and while taking cognizance, learned trial court passed the summoning order U/s 326 I.P.C. also in addition to the offenses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submits that injured person, namely, Nitesh has lost his eyes in the alleged incident. They do not dispute the fact that only general allegations have been leveled by Nitesh in his statement against all the accused persons but in the F.I.R., the specific allegations were made by informant that appellant alongwith Nirbhay caused injuries with the butt of country-made pistol.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the private respondents and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. of the case in question, F.I.R. of cross case which was lodged from the side of appellant, injury report of the members of both sides as well as other relevant documents; it is undisputed fact that in the F.I.R., specific allegations were made against appellant including Nirbhay for causing injuries to Nitesh with the butt of country-made pistol but in the statement of Nitesh, only general allegations have been leveled against all the accused persons for causing injuries by 'lathi' and 'danda' . It is evident from the record that the charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer against appellant U/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 324 and Sections 3(1) (da), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act and in addition to the aforesaid sections, cognizance was taken by the trial court U/s 326 I.P.C. also against appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 06.01.2022 passed

¶13

by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Anoop Saxena involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Arpan

¶21

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

Anoop Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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