Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024/1964/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application under the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's order, noting the victim had denied the appellant's presence and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.03.2023 set aside; appellant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding attendance and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11146

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1964 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sumit Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, matter is being decided finally with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 424 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 412 of 2022, under Sections 307, 326A I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case only with the intention to release some money. He further submits that during the course of trial, statement of the victim was recorded, in which, she refused to identify the appellant as an accused, she also stated that appellant was not involved in the incident and some other person committed the offence. He further submits that charge sheet has already been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in the most mechanical manner, and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial of the present case. He further submits that all these facts were not considered by the court below and rejected the bail application of the applicant, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 17.12.2022, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer

¶10

of the appellant but he does not dispute the fact that victim in her deposition has not supported the prosecution version.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as statement of the victim recorded before the trial court, it is evident that victim before the trial court has categorically denied the presence of the appellant in her cross examination. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 31.03.2023.

¶12

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 and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 424 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 412 of 2022, under Sections 307, 326A I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Sumit Kumar , 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 :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 229-A of the

¶16

Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 applicant 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 Gaurav/-

¶20

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

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Radhey Shyam Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shatruhan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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