Suchendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2033

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1740 of 2022

Appellant :- Suchendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nishit Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It is evident from the order sheet that notice has been served on the respondent no. 2, but none has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶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 19.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 286 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 394 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sandi, District Hardoi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that earlier an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 317 of 2011, under Section 394 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sandi, District Hardoi, in which, after investigation, final report had been submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed, which was treated as a complaint case and the appellant was summoned. Later on, the appellant was enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that due to mistake, he could not appear on the date fixed before the court below, as a result, non-bailable warrant was issued. It is also submitted that a recall application was also moved, but the same was rejected. The bail application of the appellant was also

¶10

rejected vide impugned order dated 19.04.2022. It is next submitted that the appellant was also implicated in two other cases, in both of which, he is on bail. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 30.08.2021, is entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the appellant is habitual in avoiding the court proceedings. However, he does not dispute the fact that final report was submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer and thereafter, the case was treated as a complaint case.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that earlier the final report was submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer in the matter. It is also submitted that appellant was earlier enlarged on bail.

¶13

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 286 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 394 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sandi, District Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Suchendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶17

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 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 VKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suchendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

Ishhak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Ajeet Kumar vs the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda

Vikki Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Nithuri Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others