Allowed

Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2024CRLA/1265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal challenging rejection of bail in a case under Sections 302/120B IPC and SC/ST Act where the informant's own inquest statement indicated suicide and no charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The High Court found the trial court had failed to consider these aspects and set aside the impugned order, releasing the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-refusal order dated 04.04.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with four conduct conditions.

Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69276

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1265 of 2024 Appellant :- Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kumar Singh,Uday Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ankit Tripathi,Prince Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Sitapur, in Bail Application No.128/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 215/2023 under Sections 302/120B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mishrikh, District- Sitapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 03.04.2024. He further submits that FIR in question was lodged by the father of deceased with the averment that his daughter (deceased) with one another girl went to ease out herself and when they were coming back to home, on their way, his daughter was killed and hanged by the appellant and three other co-accused persons. During the course of investigation, inquest was also conducted, in which, informant has categorically stated that his daughter (deceased) has committed suicide. He further submits that statement of informant was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, he has stated that Abhijit @ Chottakke was chasing his daughter and when this fact came into notice of father of Abhijit @ Chhotakke, then he was scolded and warned not to join her company, and thereafter, informant also scolded his daughter. On the next date i.e. 26.06.2023 at 02:00 PM, his daughter went to ease out along with one another girl, and when they were coming back, on their way, she was caught by Abhijit @ Chhotakke. Thereafter, Abhijit @ Chhotakke did wrong with her, at the same time, father of Abhijit @ Chhotakke reached at the spot and found them in compromising condition then daughter of the informant was scolded by passing casteist words and when another girl reached at the house alone, then informant asked about his

¶8

daughter, on which, she informed that his daughter is coming behind. But when she did not return, the search was started. During the search, daughter of informant (deceased) was found hanging on a Neem tree. He further submits that informant expressed his suspicion that named co-accused persons killed his daughter and hanged her on the tree. The statement of another girl was also recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she stated that when they were coming back, on their way, daughter of informant (deceased) was caught by the co-accused- Abhijeet @ Chhotakke but on her cry, he ran away, thereafter, she was found in hanging condition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no one has seen the incident, as it is a case of illicit relation between Abhijeet @ Chhotakke and daughter of informant (deceased). He further submits that the informant himself has admitted that his daughter was found by father of Abhijeet @ Chhotakke in compromising condition with him, as a result, both of them were scolded by their respective fathers. He further submits that in the inquest report, informant has admitted that his daughter has committed suicide but the charge sheet was submitted in the most mechanical manner. He further submits that the appellant does not have any previous criminal antecedent. But all these facts were not considered by the trial court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of appellant but they do not dispute on the contents of the statements of informant as well as another girl recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. They also concede this fact that in the inquest report, informant has himself admitted that his daughter has committed suicide.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, inquest report, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that no charge sheet was filed against the appellant but he was summoned at the stage of taking cognizance by the trial court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly

¶13

allowed , and the impugned order dated impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 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

Order Date :- 4.10.2024 V. Sinha

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola @ Sateesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rizwan Ahmad Vs Saurabh Singh Sub Divisional Officer, Lko.

Anuj Kumar Vs Chakresh Mishra, Superitendent of Police, Sitapur and Another

Dravin Kumar Singh Vs Deepak Kumar, Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

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

Munesh Prasad Vs Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Dist. Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri and Another