Allowed

Ram Ji Thakur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/2663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail appeal against Special Judge, AHC allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting bail. Appellant granted release on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions under the SC/ST Act, 1989.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted release on bail by person bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties of equal amount subject to specified conditions including no tampering and presence at trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70704

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2663 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Ji Thakur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhuvan Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhruvendra Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Bhuvan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Dhruvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short 'Act 1989') against the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao, in Bail Application No.1780 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2023, under Sections 452, 504, 376, 174-A I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(v) of Act 1989, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao.

¶8

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 31.07.2024, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the case of the prosecution against the appellant is completely false and concocted and it appears that the FIR has been lodged against the appellant only to get the financial benefits from the state exchequer.

¶9

It is further stated that the FIR in issue, which is the basis of the pending criminal proceedings, i.e. FIR No.0225 of 2023 was lodged on 30.08.2023 by the informant (husband of the victim) against the appellant, who at the relevant point of time,

¶10

as per the prosecution story itself, was at Delhi on the basis of information provided by the victim herself. According to the FIR, the appellant after entering into the house of the victim and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim forcibly and also threatened her for dire consequences, therefore, the FIR was lodged under Section 452, 354, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Act 1989.

¶11

It is also stated that the offence in which the FIR was lodged, the maximum punishment provided therein is 7 years, if the prosecution is able to establish its case beyond doubt.

¶12

It is further stated that the appellant having no criminal history is in jail since 27.05.2024.

¶13

It is also stated that that the case of the prosecution is completely bogus, false and concocted and it can be deduced from the fact that initially the FIR was lodged making allegations only to the effect that the appellant entered into the house of the victim and tried to outrage her modesty forcibly, but subsequently when the statement of the victim was recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim changed the entire story of prosecution of making allegations of commission of rape against the appellant that too in presence of two minor children of the victim aged about 5 years and 2 years respectively. This story narrated before the Investigating Officer was subsequently narrated before the Magistrate concerned.

¶14

It is further submitted that on conjoint reading of the allegations levelled in the FIR and subsequently allegations levelled by the victim during investigation, it is apparent that the case of prosecution is not intact. Thus, as the case of the prosecution against the appellant is doubtful, the appellant is

¶15

entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite party as well as 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the allegations against the appellant in FIR and statements of the victim, according to which the prosecution case is not intact, as also the period of incarceration and also 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

The order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao, in Bail Application No.1780 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2023, under Sections 452, 504, 376, 174-A I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(v) of Act 1989, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao is set aside.

¶20

Let appellant Ram Ji Singh Thakur , 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 :- 21.10.2024 Anand/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Ji Thakur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ji Thakur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Lali Vs State of U.P.

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

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Dr. Samriddhi Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Sasiya Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.