Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024CRLA/10813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case involving Sections 363, 366 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. The court found the trial court had not considered relevant facts, set aside the bail rejection order and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejection order set aside; appellant to be released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182210

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10813 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Manoj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmaveer Singh,Shivendra Nath Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. submits that notice has been served on the informant/ opposite party no.2.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar, in Bail Application No.1733 of 2024(Manoj Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 2023, under sections 363, 366, IPC and section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act, Police Station Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case appellant was in affair with the daughter of the informant, who was major at the time of alleged incident. She was voluntarily went with the appellant. It is further submitted that no any allegation regarding commission of rape was made against the appellant, by the victim herself in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the learned Magistrate, except allurement

¶11

of her marriage with Manoj. It is also submitted that no any force or violence are used by the appellant against the will of the victim, therefore, no offence could be made out against the appellant. It is further submitted that co-accused Akhilesh Alias Kallu Yadav has already been enlarge on bail vide order dated 20.03.2024, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2603 of 2024. The appellant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2024 having no any criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar while rejecting the bail which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore requested to set it aside and allow the appeal.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar, the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar has not taken into consideration all these facts while considering bail, therefore, the order passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be lawful and is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Manoj involved in Case Crime No.184 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(V) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 VKG

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. 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

Dharmendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Digendra Alias Vijendra Alias Dk vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamshad vs State of Up

Noor Fatima Thru. Her Mother Kaisher Jahan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and 7 Others

Mohd. Salman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and 2 Others

Pramod Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko