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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81756

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12660 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Diwakar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024, in Case Crime No.0238/2024, under Section 64 (1) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Achalganj, District - Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R., which was lodged on 29.07.2024, for the incident dated 29.07.2024, against the driver of the Vikram Tempo bearing Registration No.35T7238. Present applicant is the driver of the said vehicle, i.e. Vikram Tempo. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 on the same day, i.e. on 29.07.2024, her medical examination was conducted on the same day, i.e. on 29.07.2024 and in the medical examination report the prosecution story is not being substantiated. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is one surprising fact that the date of the incident, recording of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and the date of the medical examination is same, i.e. 29.07.2024, which creates doubt on the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that if the prosecutrix was searching out any rented house accommodation while sitting on the said Vikram Tempo in question, she should not have remained in such vehicle till mid night along with her child. It has also been pointed out that there is some variation in the prosecution story, i.e. in the version of the F.I.R. and the

¶9

statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that from the prosecution story, it appears that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm and did not oppose the applicant when the alleged offence was being committed by him, inasmuch as, as per medical examination report, she did not receive any physical injury. The present applicant has no previous criminal history. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into the merits of the issue, particularly considering the medical report, variation in the version of the F.I.R. as well as in the statement, the fact that present applicant remained in judicial custody till completion of the investigation and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail and, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant (Rajan) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶19

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 ML/-

¶21

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

Rajan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Yadav @ Ganeshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Atul Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Nasir Hashmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rajan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shaad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Kunwar Ajay Pratap Singh @ Ajay Singh Silawar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko