Allowed

Deepak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/2155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal to set aside the impugned bail rejection order. Relying on the delayed FIR, corroborative independent witness statements, and the prior bail of a co-accused with an identical role, the Court enlarged the appellant on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11338

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2155 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Deepak Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Jayveer Rajput,Anjali Dubey,Anurag Henry,Rajiv Mishra,Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mithlesh Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2730 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2020 U/s 376-D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao; for releasing appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that as per the prosecution case, the incident was taken place on 06.06.2020 but the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on 24.12.2020 under order of Magistrate passed on the application moved U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. She further submits that charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner merely on the basis of statement of victim recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. without investigating the contents of the said statements. She further submits that statement of victim has already been recorded before learned trial court and there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely, Mohit Singh, having identical role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2022. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 13.07.2021 and he does not have any criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that all the aforesaid relevant facts were not considered by learned trial court while rejecting the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant. They jointly submit that victim supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. They do not dispute the fact that statements of Shiv Bhan and other independent witnesses were also recorded in which they stated that some quarrel was taken place between family members of the parties, thereafter, the issue was resolved by way of settlement. They also submit that affidavit was given to Superintendent of Police concerned with the averment that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on the basis of fabricated story.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., statement of victim recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., statement of other witnesses as well as other relevant documents; it is undisputed fact that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged after six months from the date of alleged incident and the independent witnesses stated that affidavit was given to Superintendent of Police concerned with the averment that no such incident was taken place. It is evident that coaccused, namely, Mohit Singh, having identical role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2022. It is also evident that statement of victim has already been recorded before the trial court and there is no possibility of tempering of evidence. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Deepak 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

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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 appellant 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.

¶17

(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 sufficient 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.

¶18

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Arpan

¶20

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

Deepak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

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

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

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another