Allowed

Abid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024CRLA/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail for an accused booked under rape and SC/ST Act provisions; noting the victim was a 32-year-old major who declined internal medical examination and trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the High Court set aside the Special Judge's order and released the appellant on bail with attendance undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order set aside; appellant Abid Ali to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to specified attendance and conduct conditions.

Abid Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17223

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 128 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Abid Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Kumar Srivastav,Rajesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Hari Bux Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶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 11.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10029 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 500 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim is a major lady and she joined the company of the appellant on her own, but only with the intention to blackmail the appellant, she lodged the F.I.R. No. 500 of 2023 (supra). It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner without investigating the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the victim also denied her internal medico legal examination. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and the trial is also not going on. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 08.11.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, they do not dispute the fact that victim denied for her internal medical examination. They also concede the fact that the victim was aged about 32 years.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim is a major and prudent lady of 32 years. It is also evident that she denied for her internal medical examination.

¶11

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.

¶12

Impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10029 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 500 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant, Abid Ali be released on bail 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 :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(ii) The appellant 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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 VKS

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid Ali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.