Allowed

Mohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024/45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a gang-rape case. The victim, examined as P.W.1, did not support the prosecution version and stated the FIR contents were dictated by her lawyer. Holding that trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order set aside; appellant Mohit Singh released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and cooperation at trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5772

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 45 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Mohit Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Jayveer Rajput,Kumar Ayush Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Mohan Singh,Mithlesh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is evident that the names of two counsel have been shown in the cause list on behalf of the complainant, but none is present on her behalf.

¶8

As the appeal is pending since January, 2022, the same is hereby decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Unnao in Bail Application No. 2775 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2020 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after six months from the date of incident and the inordinate delay has also not been explained. It is also submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She also stated that all the facts, as mentioned in the F.I.R., were stated by the lawyer on his own. It is vehemently submitted that as the statement of the victim has already

¶11

been recorded before the trial court as P.W. 1, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. 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 09.06.2021, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. have been explained by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, he does not dispute the fact that the victim, in her deposition before the trial court as P.W. 1, stated that the contents of the F.I.R. were mentioned by her lawyer on his own.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents including the deposition of the victim, it is evident that the victim has been examined before the trial court as P.W. 1, but she has not supported the prosecution version in her deposition.

¶14

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.

¶15

Impugned order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Unnao in Bail Application No. 2775 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2020 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let appellant, Mohit Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal

¶17

bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 VKS

¶23

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

Mohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Ashutosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Sameem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another

Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Smt. Parana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lucknow