Allowed

Tarzan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and Anr.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the special judge's order rejecting bail. The court noted the victim denied the internal medico-legal examination, a factor the lower court overlooked, leading to the bail grant with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.1.2022 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Tarzan Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9765

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 346 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Tarzan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary (Home) And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Bhairo Nath,Farooq Ayoob,Manoj Kumari Tiwari,Nripendra Mishra,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 28.1.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Criminal Misc. Case No. 118/12A/2022 (B) arising out of F.I.R. No. 339 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376-D, 343, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)A & 3(1)(da) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rupaideeha, District Bahraich.

¶8

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of incorrect facts. He further submits that charge sheet was filed, victim has denied her internal medico legal examination. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that on 2.10.2021 in the night at about 12:00 a.m., she went for natures call of her child, at the same time, appellant came there and took her away alongwith her child, she also stated that they started moving by walk, thereafter, she sat in the vehicle of appellant, then all came to Lucknow by bus and she did not raised alarm, this is highly improbable story but all these facts were not considered by the Investigating OfÏcer. He further

¶10

submits that as the charge sheet has been filed, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 6.1.2022, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that victim has supported the prosecution story but he does not dispute this fact that victim has denied for her internal medico legal examination.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., it is evident that victim has denied for her internal medico legal examination. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 28.1.2022.

¶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

Order dated 28.1.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Criminal Misc. Case No. 118/12A/2022 (B) arising out of F.I.R. No. 339 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376-D, 343, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)A & 3(1)(da) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rupaideeha, District Bahraich, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant Tarzan 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

¶17

condition, it shall be open for the trial 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A 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 applicant 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 applicant 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 :- 1.2.2024

¶22

Gaurav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tarzan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarzan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Rajesh Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Sonu @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitish Yadav Alias Aman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others