Allowed

Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024/1653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal quashing an earlier bail rejection order. The Court held photographs in the case diary were not objectionable, the alleged video was not recovered, and the lower court failed to consider these facts. The applicant is released on bail during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.05.2023 by Special Judge, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1667 of 2023 is quashed/set aside. Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4381

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1653 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Despite service of notice, no one has appeared before this Court on behalf of first informant.

¶7

The photographs, which is a part of the case diary is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

The present appeal has been filed for quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No 1667 arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2023 under Section 306 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of I.T Act, Police Station- Sareni, District Raebareli.

¶10

Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased Bitana was in relationship with the appellant. Thereafter, on coming into knowledge of the aforesaid relationship, the father of Bitana objected the same and thereafter the deceased had committed suicide.

¶11

Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the photographs, which is part of the case diary which shows photographs of appellant and Bitana showing in a friendly pose. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for appellant that apart from these photographs, no other video as alleged in the statement of first informant was recovered by the Police.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that a compromise, which is part of the case diary, also shows that the appellant himself admitted that he will not post the alleged photographs on social media and will not call her again therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned bail rejection order and there is sufÏcient evidence against the appellant.

¶13

After hearing the parties and perusing police report, it

¶14

appears that the only allegation against the appellant is that he threatened the deceased Bitana to post her photographs on social media, but on perusal of the photographs, which is a part of case diary, there was nothing objectionable in these photographs which could be a sufÏcient reason for making out allegation of abetment of suicide and the alleged video which was mentioned in the statement of first informant was not recovered by the police during investigation, therefore, there is no photograph which could be said to be objectionable. These material facts were not considered by the Court below while passing the impugned bail order.

¶15

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 order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1667 of 2023 is hereby quashed/set aside.

¶16

Let the applicant Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

(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 sufÏcient

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 DiVYa

¶23

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

Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Farman Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nitin Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Bihari Singh @ Deepak Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Mohammad Imran Alias Simran Taranshah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt . Lucknow and Anr.

Vaibhav Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Taqdeer Husian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another