Allowed

Mr. Azad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2024/548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail for rape and SC/ST offences, the Allahabad High Court notes a six-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and unexplained recovery failures. Finding the appeal has substance and the trial unlikely to conclude soon, the court set aside the impugned order and granted bail with strict conditions regarding absence and adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on personal bond with two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournment during evidence.

Mr. Azad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21632

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 548 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mr. Azad Ali

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Azmi Yousuf,Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 262 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 667 of 2022, under Sections 323, 376, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(1) (da)/3(2)(va)/3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village politics. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the incident was taken place on 10th June, 2022, but the F.I.R. was lodged with delay of six days, on 16th June, 2022. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the victim was in her house along with her father, who was unable to move. On the date of incident at 10.30 a.m., she went to purchase some grocery articles at the shop situated in the village. In the way, appellant met her and took her forcibly to the house of Bharat, which was lying vacant and committed rape with her. Thereafter, while giving warning, she was allowed to go. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that initially, she was in dilemma about lodging of the F.I.R., but later on, she went to the police station on 16th June, 2022 and informed the police for lodging of the

¶11

F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded and there is contradiction in her statements. It is also submitted that the clothes were not recovered by the Investigating OfÏcer and the pathological report also does not support the prosecution version. It is next submitted that the trial was proceeded and as the deposition of the victim was also recorded before the trial court, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence and only formal witnesses are to be examined before the trial court. 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 06.08.2022, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the appellant, but do not dispute that the F.I.R. was lodged after six days from the date of the incident and the delay has not been explained properly. It is also not disputed that the clothes of the victim were also not recovered by the Investigating OfÏcer. They also concede the fact that the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the trial court.

¶13

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 as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged after six days and the delay has not been explained. It is also evident that the deposition of the victim has already been recorded before the trial court.

¶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

¶15

substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶16

Impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 262 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 667 of 2022, under Sections 323, 376, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(1)(da)/3(2) (va)/3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let appellant, Mr. Azad Ali 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 :-

¶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

¶22

default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.3.2024 VKS

¶25

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

Mr. Azad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Azad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., 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

Similar cases

G.R.S.M. Memorial College of Pharmacy Thru. Chairman Manoj Kumar vs Sri M Devraj Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Another

Adarsh Pratap Singh vs Vineet Jaiswal, Superintendent of Police, Dist. Gonda and Another

Raju vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

Shivam Mehrotra @ Shivam Malhotra vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Shivam Mehrotra @ Shivam Malhotra vs State of U.P. through secretary home department U.P Government civil secretariat Lucknow

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