Allowed

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024CRLA/102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held that the trial court did not adequately consider factual discrepancies and Supreme Court precedents regarding false promises of marriage. Bail was granted with personal and surety bonds and specific conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order is set aside; the appellant is released on bail of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and conditions to cooperate with the trial.

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31174

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 102 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Devendra Pratap,Naveen Kumar Pandey,Rahul Mishra,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Priyanka Dube

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. Despite service of notice, as appears from the record including the Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Priyanka Dubey, learned Advocate, no one appeared on behalf of the victim. Learned A.G.A. is present.

¶7

This Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶8

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

¶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 08.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Lucknow, in Bail Application No. 8976 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2023 under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bakshi-ka-Talab, District-Lucknow.

¶10

While assailing the impugned order, under appeal, dated 08.11.2023, whereby the application seeking bail preferred by the appellant was rejected by the trial court, it is stated by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that victim, aged about 22 years at the time of lodging FIR, who levelled certain allegations to attract offence under Sections 376/506 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as amended in the year 2015 was known to the appellant and in fact both were having love affair and for certain reasons the marriage could not be solemnized and as per the case of the victim, the appellant got married with another girl on 22.06.2023 and therefore allegation of committing rape on account of false promise of marriage have been levelled.

¶11

He further submitted that as per FIR the physical relations were made by the appellant on 04.04.2022 and as per the statement of victim recorded in terms of Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the physical relations were made on 04.04.2021, and accordingly, the story of prosecution is not intact.

¶12

He further submitted that the case set up in the F.I.R. is not supported the by any medical evidence.

¶13

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 ; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110, to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, the allegation should be to the effect that promise to marry given was false at the inception and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶14

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant.

¶16

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶17

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, this Court is of the view that all the factual aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court in the light of the observations made in the judgments, referred above, while passing the order dated 08.11.2023. For these reasons, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶18

Order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Lucknow, in Bail Application No. 8976 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2023 under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bakshi-ka-Talab, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let appellant- Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶30

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Jyoti/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Jiawan and Others Vs Ganga Das and Others

Dilwant Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Chandra Prakash Vs Chief Revenue Officer District Gonda and 26 Others

Sushil Kumar and Others Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial- I, Lucknow and Others

Nadeem Azhar and 5 Others Vs Consolidation Officer Tehsil Hasanganj Unnao and 3 Others

Ram Bhajan Chaurasiya Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others