Allowed

Lalit Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024/1723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a bail rejection order. The court set aside the lower court's order and enlarged the appellant on bail with conditions, noting the absence of medical evidence and conflicting prosecution narrative.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of bail order set aside; Appellant granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties with additional conditions.

Lalit Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76727

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1723 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Lalit Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Priyadarshi,Ravi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suyash Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, filed in Court today, are taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 perused the record.

¶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 30.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 3293 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Sections - 376 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gazipur, DistrictLucknow.

¶9

While pressing the present appeal counsel for the appellant submits that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value then in that event the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 .

¶10

In continuation, counsel for the appellant submitted that the

¶11

appellant, who is in jail since 19.04.2024 and has no criminal history, has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the entire story against the appellant, indicated by the victim and that the appellant established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage is false and concocted.

¶12

The F.I.R. lodged on 09.03.2024, is completely false and concocted and if it is true then it is a case of consent as the victim was major and accordingly it can be deduced that the physical relations were established by the appellant with the victim with her consent and for some reasons, their relationship could not continued and as such to pressurize the appellant, as also to get the financial benefit from the State Exchequer, the present F.I.R. has been lodged after having relation for about eight years.

¶13

He further submitted that the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case are extremely bleak in view of the law related to establishing relationship on the pretext of false promise of marriage.

¶14

He further submitted that even the case set up in the F.I.R. is not supported the by any medical evidence.

¶15

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, the allegation should be to the effect that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶16

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned

¶18

counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant.

¶19

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the contesting parties and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶20

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the contesting parties, F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 19.04.2024 and has no criminal history as also the submissions regarding physical relations as also the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶21

Order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 3293 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Sections - 376 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gazipur, District- Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let appellant- Lalit Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶33

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶34

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

Lalit Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lucknow and Another

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

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

Sheeba Zamani Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Kalayani @ Ranno Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raghavendra Kumar Dixit S/O Tribeni Shankar Dixit Vs the State of U.P.

Saleem Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rishabh Singh @ Brijbhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another