Allowed

Shubham Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, 1989. Finding that the victim and injured person rejected the prosecution story and the trial would take a long time, the court set aside the bail rejection order and granted bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and evidence dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13100

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 316 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shubham Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Pratap Singh,Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 3169 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 220 of 2023, under Sections 376, 394, 323, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mohanganj, District Amethi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in mechanical manner. It is also submitted that during the course of trial, statement of the victim as well as alleged injured was recorded, in which, they categorically denied the prosecution story. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and the trial is also not going on. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 27.07.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after detail investigation, the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer.

¶11

Learned counsel for the complainant concedes the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the victim as well as injured person have not supported the prosecution version. He also submits that the complainant-victim has no objection, in case, the appellant is granted bail.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., statement of the victim and injured as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim as well as injured person, who were examined before the trial court as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, have not supported the prosecution version.

¶13

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Impugned order dated 28.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 3169 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 220 of 2023, under Sections 376, 394, 323, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mohanganj, District Amethi is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Shubham Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶16

(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

¶17

court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 VKS

¶22

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

Shubham Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow 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

Dheeraj @ Manav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shiva Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shubham Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another