Allowed

Samod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/1939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against bail rejection allowed. Court held trial court failed to consider victim statement indicating no offence was made out against appellant, thus setting aside rejection and granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard bail conditions.

Samod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2479

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1939 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Samod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.5.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 4603 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2023 U/s 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow.

¶8

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and is in jail since 13.3.2023. He further submits that after considering the entire statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., no offence is made out as the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has categorically stated that appellant is residing in a house, which is situated in front of her house and she was with the appellant on 2.3.2023, thereafter, she was caught by her father when she was in conversation with the appellant on phone and was beaten brutally, then she was fully ensured that on the next date appellant will also beaten by her her father, as a result, on 3.3.2023 at 4:00 A.M., she left her house and came to the appellant, thereafter, only with the intention to save appellant from beating, they went away and the appellant has not committed any wrong with her and she also stated that she was not enticed away by the appellant but the statement of the victim was not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted by court below. It is also submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute this fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version and stated that she was caught by her father when she was in conversation with the appellant on phone and only to save appellant, she left her house and went away with the appellant.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that victim has not supported the prosecution version but all these facts were not considered by the court below. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

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 impugned 31.5.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 4603 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Samod Kumar 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:-

¶14

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 Gaurav/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Samod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow 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

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

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Om Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Mangla Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another