Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/2847/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal concerned bail applications under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court found substance in the appeal due to disparate victim statements and trial delay, setting aside the lower order and granting bail with strict conditions including personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.09.2024 in Bail Application No. 644/2024 set aside; appellants released on bail with personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each and two sureties of like amount.

Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan and 2 Others Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69362

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2847 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Case called out. Despite service of notice, as appears from Office Report dated 26.09.2024 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶8

Heard Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vinay Kumar Sahi, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants namely Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan, Anil Verma and Kunnu Chaudhari @ Anil Kumar under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Bail Application No. 644/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2020, under Section 365 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S.Bhinga, District- Shrawasti.

¶10

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellants stated that as per the case of prosecution, the victim/Ram Pheran, aged about 63 years, was abducted by the appellants alongwith others on 18.01.2020 at about 8 A.M. in the morning from the Village Shemari (permanent place of residence of victim), Police Station- Bhinga, DistrictShrawasti.

¶11

It is further stated that the entire story of prosecution against the appellants is completely false and concocted, which can be deduced from the contents of application preferred by the

¶12

opposite party No. 2/Siya Ram Balik (nephew of victim/Ram Pheran) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as also the statements of witnesses of prosecution recorded during investigation including the statement of victim/Ram Pheran himself recorded in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also his statement recorded on 18.02.2020 by the police personnel, which appears to have been recorded after the order passed by the competent court of jurisdiction dated 15.02.2020 on an application dated 13.02.2020 preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶13

In continuation, it is stated that as per the application dated 13.02.2020 preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 7-8 persons abducted the victim/Ram Pheran and as per the statement of victim/Ram Pheran recorded on 18.02.2020, the victim on his own volition left his house and thereafter a missing report was lodged in this regard as is also apparent from the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 13.02.2020 and thereafter, the victim/Ram Pheran on his own appeared before the police personnel of Police StationBhinga, District- Shrawasti. It is apparent from the statement of victim made before the in-charge of the police station that the victim about one month back i.e. on 18.01.2020 on his volition left his house situated at Village- Shemari and on his own on 18.02.2020 alongwith one Krishna Kumar Tiwari, resident of Village- Chandrawa appeared before the police station, as before the in-charge of police station, he stated that "लगभग 1 महहननपपररमयअपननघरसनमरहसनबबननबकसहककबतनयनबनहरचलनगयनथन एकमहहननघपमननबफरननकनबनदआजककषणककमनरबतरनरहबन०- गनम चनदरहरनकनसनथथनननपरआयनह ह मकझनककईअपहरणकरयनजबरदसतह सननहहलनगयनथनऔरनहहबनधकबननकररखनथन।ममअपनहमजरसनगयन थनऔरअपनहमजरसनरनपसआयनह ह ।अबममअपननसरवचछनसनबभनगन ससथतरकदनआशमममरहननचनहतनह ह ।" It is stated that videography of this statement was also carried out.

¶14

It is further stated that thereafter the FIR in issue was lodged on 09.03.2020 in compliance of the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the competent court of jurisdiction, under Section 365 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act against eight persons including the appellants herein.

¶15

It is further stated that again the statement of victim/Ram Pheran was recorded on 28.03.2020 and as per this statement, the victim was abducted by Jitendra Tripathi, Majhile Yadav and two unknown persons.

¶16

It is also stated that thereafter before the court concerned, the statement of victim was recorded on 02.06.2020 in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, the victim changed the story of

¶17

prosecution and supported the allegations levelled in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 13.02.2020 and it appears that this statement was given under the influence of opposite party No. 2.

¶18

It is further stated that as per the statement made by the victim/Ram Pheran in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., Mahesh Pandey, Jitendra Tripathi, Kunnu Lal (appellant No. 3), Chandrava, Majhile Yadav, Anil Verma (appellant No. 2), Arjun, Mata Prasad @ Kariya Kotedar and Shamu Pradhan (appellant No. 1) committed the crime.

¶19

It is further stated in view of aforesaid, it is apparent that the story of prosecution is not intact.

¶20

It is also stated that considering the discrepancies in the statements of victim/Ram Pheran, co-accused Mahesh Pandey has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the court concerned/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Bail Application No. 289 of 2022, however, in the case of the appellants herein, the court concerned took note of the statement of victim made in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. only.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellants' counsel particularly the contradictions in the FIR and the statements of victim/Ram Pheran recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also before the police personnel concerned on 18.02.2020.

¶22

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, 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 statements of victim/Ram Pheran recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also his statement recorded before the police personnel concerned on 18.02.2020.

¶23

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR and also the statements of victim/Ram Pheran recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also his statement recorded before the police personnel concerned on 18.02.2020 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 .

¶24

Order 04.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Bail

¶25

Application No. 644/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2020, under Section 365 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bhinga, District- Shrawasti is hereby set aside.

¶26

Let the appellants- Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan, Anil Verma and Kunnu Chaudhari @ Anil Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following additional conditions :-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(v) The appellants 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶35

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.

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellants 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 observations made in this order.

¶37

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Arun/-

¶38

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haseena Begum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Viresh Singh @ Viresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ramvir Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Priyanka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Munna Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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