Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61209

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2517 of 2024

Appellant :- Jay Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Israr Siddiqui,Ranveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Having regard to the communication dated 03.09.2024 sent by the C.J.M., Balrampur, the informant of this case has been sufficiently served, however, she is not represented.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant- Jay Prakash for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District Judge, Balrampur in Bail Application No.143 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0239 of 2024, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. He was not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by mother of the victim, however, after two days of lodging of the FIR, the prosecutrix is shown to have been recovered and in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has alleged that, on being intimidated by the appellant, she had left her home and gone with the appellant to Utraula, however, no sexual relations have been established between them.

¶10

Highlighting above, it is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix has refused to undergo any medical examination and even if her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are believed on its face, it will emerge that she has left her home on her own volition and has not been enticed away by the appellant and, it is under the influence of her family

¶11

members, she has alleged to have been intimidated by the appellant. It is vehemently submitted that the bone-age of the victim has been assessed as 19 years, while as per educational credentials her age is 16 years ad 03 months, however, the same is irrelevant as the prosecutrix appears to have left her home herself.

¶12

It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 28.04.2023. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has committed an heinous crime and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Considering the fact that the prosecutrix is shown to have left her home on her own, however, it is alleged that she was intimidated by the appellant; the defence has been taken by learned counsel for the appellant that the story of being intimidated by the appellant has been carved out subsequently; the bone age of the victim has been assessed as 19 years as well as the age of the prosecutrix as shown in her educational record as 16 years 03 months; the victim has refused to undergo any medical examination; the fact that the appellant is in jail in this case since 28.04.2024; he is not having any previous criminal record to his credit; charge-sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned special/trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

¶15

In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside . Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

¶16

Let the appellant- Jay Prakash involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case

¶23

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 MVS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Usha Devi @ Usha Mittal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shailendra Yadav @ Jawas and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Parshuram Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Principle secretary, Home and Ors.

Ankit Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kailash Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Bhaiyalal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another