Rajjan Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3006

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1516 of 2022 Appellant :- Rajjan Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar,Chandra Prakash,Rajni Kant Dwivedi,Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case Crime No.120/2022 under Sections 323, 452, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶7

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry, as due to political rivalry, the preventive action was taken by the police official under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2022 against the appellant as well as the complainant of the case in question, and thereafter, due to annoyance, F.I.R. of case in question was lodged by the complainant on 12.02.2022 alleging that the said incident was taken place on 19.01.2022 at 12:00 AM in presence of two children and thereafter, when he came back then the victim reported the incident to him and they came to the police station but the F.I.R. was not lodged. He further submitted that victim was not in good mental condition, therefore, she could not properly narrate the said incident and give her statement before the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that statements of children of victim were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and their statements are contradictory with the other evidences and the medical evidences also do not corroborate with the prosecution story. He further submitted that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 22.04.2022. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense

¶9

of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that undisputedly, victim is mentally retarded, therefore, she was unable to narrate the incident to the Investigating Officer but the children of the victim, in their statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., have supported the prosecution story, therefore, appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that preventive action was taken by the police officials against the appellant as well as the complainant but he has not disclosed any incident which was allegedly taken place on 19.01.2022 with the wife of the private respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Rajjan 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:-

¶14

(1) 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 applicant fails to appear before the

¶17

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

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶20

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

Rajjan v. State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan v. State of Up 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid @ Khunai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 Others

Munnulal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Hanuman Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Akash Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others