Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024/488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Court granted bail considering the appellant's age, the lack of criminal history, and the improbable nature of the prosecution's story, releasing him on a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29590

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 488 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Jagdish Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

¶7

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

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4324 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 342, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Ram Saneshi Ghat, District - Barabanki.

¶9

Assailing the order impugned dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Act, Barabanki whereby the application seeking bail was rejected by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that initially the FIR was lodged against one Rajesh Kumar Lodh under Sections 366, 342, 376 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Ram Sanehighat District Barabanki and thereafter on being recovered, the statement of victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she only indicated the name of the accused whose name finds placed in the FIR and before the Court concerned where the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she levelled allegations against

¶10

three persons namly Rajesh Kumar Lodh, the appellant and one Raj Kumar but after proper investigation the charge-sheet was not filed against the appellant and before the trial Court again the victim indicated the name of the appellant in examination-in-chief and based upon the same, the trial Court summoned the appellant and on being appeared, the appellant was taken into judicial custody on 20.09.2023 and since then, the appellant is languishing in jail.

¶11

He further stated that Raj Kumar Lodh and Raj Kumar, alleged coaccused, against whom the charge-sheet was filed after due investigation by the Investigating Officer have already been released on bail by this Court in terms of order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2022. and order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2170 of 2021 , respectively.

¶12

He further submitted that prior to implication in the present case, the appellant was not having any criminal history and after the order of the trial Court passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the appellant has been implicated in Case Crime No. 496 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District - Barabanki.

¶13

He further submitted that the appellant has not committed any crime and he has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that the appellant is relative (brother-in-law) of Rajesh Kumar Lodh.

¶14

He also stated that the appellant is aged about 60 years and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as also taking note of the age of the appellant, the story of the prosecution set up by the victim against the appellant is false and improbable.

¶15

He further stated that there is no medical evidence to support the case of the prosecution against the appellant.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant

¶17

on the basis of subsequent implication of the appellant in Case Crime No. 496 of 2022, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel particularly that the co-accused against whom charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer after due investigation are on bail in terms of order(s) passed by this Court.

¶18

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, 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 statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the facts pertaining to criminal history of the appellant and his age as also that the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Lodh and Raj Kumar have been granted bail by this Court as also the fact that the appellant has been languishing in jail since 20.09.2023 and the basic story of the prosecution and the statements of victim 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 .

¶20

The order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4324 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 342, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Ram Saneshi Ghat, District - Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶21

Let the appellant Jagdish be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) The appellant 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(viii) 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant 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 observation made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 12.4.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Pratap Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Harishankar Pandey vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh and 3 Others

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

Fakire vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lko. and 4 Others

Niranjan Gaur @ Niranjan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another