Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024/1784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged bail rejection, arguing relationship and forced marriage negated abetment to suicide charge. Court found undisputed relationship facts made offence unlikely. Bail allowed based on these circumstances and pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions including appearance and non-interference.

Vaibhav Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4350

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1784 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Vaibhav Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Manendra Nath Rai,Umesh Chandra Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has also informed that he has already filed rejoinder affidavit.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

A prayer for bail has been made by the appellants, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.1347 of 2023 in Special Sessions Trial No.499/2023 (Vaibhav Pal Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of case crime no.0079 of 2023, u/s 306, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station-Harpalpur, DistrictHardoi.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is an admitted case of prosecution that deceased Poonam was in relationship with the appellant for long time which was objected by the first informant being his father. Subsequently, the deceased committed suicide on her marriage being fixed with other boy by his father. Therefore, no case u/s 306 IPC is made out and allegation of beating to the first informant is also incorrect because to substantiate such allegation, there is no injury on record. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the offence u/s SC/ST Act is also not made out because as per the

¶12

allegation, casteist words were used by the appellant inside the house of the first informant, and there was no public witness.

¶13

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that from the allegations of FIR as well as the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., case is made out against the appellant because there are the witnesses who clearly stated that the appellant had beaten the first informant and thereafter, the deceased had committed suicide.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 though adopted the argument of learned AGA but also added that it is the appellant who is responsible to create such situation which forced the deceased Poonam to commit suicide. Therefore, case u/s 306 IPC is clearly made out and there are independent witnesses who support the contention that when the appellant was caught by the informant in his house along with his daughter then he beat the first informant.

¶15

After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, it is undisputed that the appellant and the deceased Poonam were in relationship for a long time and subsequently, the first informant being the father of the deceased Poonam fixed her marriage with other boy. Even if it is admitted that the appellant has beaten the first informant (opposite party no.2) in his house when he raised objection on finding the appellant and his daughter inside the house of the first informant, even then these circumstances will not be sufficient to make the offence u/s 306 IPC. These facts were not considered by the court below while passing the impugned order.

¶16

In view of above and also keeping the view of the fact that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly is allowed . The impugned order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.1347 of 2023 in Special Sessions Trial No.499/2023 (Vaibhav Pal Vs. State of U.P.)

¶17

arising out of case crime no.0079 of 2023, u/s 306, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the appellant- Vaibhav Pal 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:-

¶19

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶21

c. The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶22

d. The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Pal 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.

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

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