Allowed

Arif @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024CRLA/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal appeal against the bail rejection order by the Special Judge, setting aside the lower court's decision. Granting bail on personal bonds, the court noted the victim was a major who accompanied the appellant and highlighted the investigative lapses regarding CCTV footage.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Arif @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14565

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 110 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Arif @ Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Yadav,Poonam Saroj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 27.9.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4212 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 226 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that it is undisputed fact that victim is a major lady and she went with the appellant on her own. He further submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by father of the victim and during the course of investigation, statements of the victim were recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she stated that on 9.6.2023 at about 5:30 p.m., she was going to market to take some article, in the way, appellant met her alongwith the co-accused, Kuddus and forced her for sitting on motor cycle, thereafter, they closed her mouth, as a result, she did not raised alarm and motor cycle was driven by Kuddus and appellant was pillion rider. She also averred that they came to Barabanki Railway Station, thereafter, she alongwith appellant went to Bangalore and stayed in a room, where against her wishes, appellant made physical relations, and thereafter, they came

¶9

back to Lucknow by flight. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at Railway Station as well as Airport several police personnel are deployed but she never raised alarm and C.C.T.V. footage of the concerned airport was also not taken by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 21.06.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute this fact that victim is a major and prudent lady and footage of the Railway Station as well as Airport was not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that victim is a major lady and it is admitted case that she went to the Railway Station, Barabanki, then to Bangalore but C.C.T.V. footage was not taken by the Investigating Officer. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 27.9.2023.

¶12

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 substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order dated 27.9.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4212 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 226 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Arif @ Sonu , be released on bail

¶15

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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 Gaurav-Arpan/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arif @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Harinath Alias Dhanai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Nakul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others