Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024/1742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application. It found that the victim was a married lady involved in a consensual relationship, and the FIR was lodged after the offense of false implication was committed by the victim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection of bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and sureties subject to four specific conditions regarding attendance and non-abuse of liberty.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3203

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1742 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Pradhan,Kunwer Dhananjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is evident from the record that the notice has already been served on private respondent, but no one has put in appearance is present on her 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 16.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1701 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 160 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Raebareli.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the victim is a major lady and she was in relation with the appellant. It is further submitted that the victim was insisting the appellant to solemnize marriage with her and when the appellant denied for the same, the F.I.R. No. 160 of 2023 (supra) was lodged on the basis of incorrect facts. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail

¶10

since 16.04.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that the victim is a major lady and she herself admitted that she was in relation with the appellant and on the pretext of marriage, the appellant made physical relations with her.

¶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 the victim is a major and prudent lady and she was in relation with the appellant. It is also evident that the victim her desire to solemnize marriage with the appellant and when he denied for the same, the F.I.R. No. 160 of 2023 has been lodged.

¶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 16.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1701 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 160 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Raebareli is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Rahul 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 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 VKS

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. 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

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.

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

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