Allowed

Aashiq Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024/2325/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, citing medical evidence against prosecution and the unlikelihood of a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount, subject to eight additional conditions.

Aashiq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69643

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2325 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Aashiq Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit,Manoj Kumar Pandey,Mohammad Imaran,Rakesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. Service of notice on opposite party No. 3/victim is sufficient, as appears from letter No. 751 dated 09.10.2024 of CJM, Raibareli. Service of notice upon opposite party No. 2/complainant is also sufficient, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State, However, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1591/2023 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bhadhokhar, District- Raebareli.

¶9

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party No. 3/victim and appellant were known to each other and were having affair and the opposite party No. 3/victim on her own volition left here parental house on 21.02.2023 at about 5.00 A.M. and accompanied the appellant to his aunt's house situated at Bachhrawan.

¶10

It is further stated that on coming to know about the aforesaid fact, the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0060/2023 dated 21.02.2023 was lodged by the opposite party No. 2/complainant at about 16.53 hours against the appellant making allegations therein so as to attract the offence as indicated under Section 366 IPC, Police Station- Bhadhokhar, District- Raebareli.

¶11

It is also stated that thereafter, on 22.02.2023, the opposite party No. 3/victim and appellant both returned to Village- Bhadhokhar, District- Raebareli, which is the place of residence of appellant and victim.

¶12

It is further stated that thereafter, the opposite party No. 3/victim was taken to police station concerned, where, she levelled allegations of committing crime

¶13

against the appellant, as would appear from the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on record as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit of State.

¶14

It is further stated that a conjoint reading of the statement of opposite party No. 3/victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded on 27.02.2023 and annexed as Annexure No. CA-7 to the counter affidavit of State, would indicate that the appellant and opposite party No. 3/victim were known to each other and were having affair.

¶15

It is also stated that the allegations regarding committing rape are completely false and concocted. It is for the reason that the opposite party No. 3/victim in her statement made before the court concerned in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that in the house of aunt of appellant, there were several persons and the crime was committed by the appellant for about one hour and also that to support the said allegations, there is no medical evidence rather the medical evidence is against the story of prosecution, as would appear from the part of charge sheet annexed as Annexure No. CA-8 to the counter affidavit of State as also the medicolegal opinion annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 is liable to be set-aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel based upon the FIR and the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR and the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical examination report of the victim and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶19

Order dated 09.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1591/2023 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bhadhokhar, District- Raebareli is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Aashiq Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶23

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶24

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶27

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶28

(viii) 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.

¶29

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Arun/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aashiq Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashiq Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

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

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Shilpa Devi Thru. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Siya Ram and Another

Rohit Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Smt. Komal Thru. His Husband Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Krishna Dwivedi @ Karantoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another