Allowed

Ashish Rajpoot v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2024/351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Court set aside the order dated 17.01.2024, releasing the appellant on bail with personal and surety bonds, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.1.2024 set aside; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions.

Ashish Rajpoot Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26093

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 351 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ashish Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yogesh Kumar,Shubham Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the victim is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶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 17.1.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10705 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0384 of 2023, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was dispute in between the family of the applicant as well as complainant. He further submits that issue was resolved by way of settlement agreement on 10.12.2023 and thereafter, only with the intention to release money, on the basis of concocted facts, F.I.R. was lodged by the victim on 12.12.2023 with the allegation that appellant & victim were known to each other and were in conversation since last one year and on the pretext of marriage appellant was making physical relations with her and after sometime he denied to solemnize marriage. He further submits that it is admitted case of the prosecution that victim is a major and prudent lady and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that during the course of her relation with the appellant, she conceived but some medicine was provided by the appellant in

¶10

October, 2023 for abortion and thereafter, he continued to make physical relations with her, as a result, her cycles were stopped, then she consulted doctor, who informed her that she is not pregnant but some treatment is required. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that story of victim is concocted as since last one year from the date of lodging of F.I.R. he was in relation with the appellant. He lastly submits that charge sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 15.12.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but they do not dispute the fact that victim is a major and prudent lady and was in conversation with the appellant and appellant is in jail since 15.12.2023.

¶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. as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that victim is a prudent & major lady and was in relation with the appellant. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 17.01.2024.

¶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 17.1.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10705 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0384 of 2023, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant Ashish Rajpoot , 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 court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.3.2024 Gaurav/-

¶21

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

Ashish Rajpoot v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Rajpoot v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Manjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishal @ Atul Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anees @ Ganja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Rajpoot vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajesh Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumay Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.