Allowed

Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2024CRLA/1582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail appeal was allowed by the Allahabad High Court. The court set aside the impugned bail rejection order grounded on the trial's lengthy delay despite the High Court's previous direction to expedite proceedings. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to ensure trial attendance and prompt conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.03.2024 set aside; Appellant released on bail under personal bond and two sureties with additional conditions; Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62097

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1582 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Second Bail Application No. 37 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 376, 384, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶9

Against the rejection order of the 1st bail application dated 19.10.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 2022, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024.

¶10

In pursuance of the earlier order dated 23.08.2024, supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is taken on record.

¶11

Shri Sagar Singh, learned State Counsel also informs that the counter affidavit has already been filed.

¶12

It is also informed that information about pendency of the present case had also been given to the victim, but none has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶13

In view of above facts, the matter is being decided finally with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State Counsel.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

¶15

appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case by the informant as well as by the victim, at the behest of one Jai Prakash Kanaujia, who is the cousin brother of the appellant, due to the fact that the said Jai Prakash Kanaujia was insisting the appellant to take the land of the temple, in which, the appellant was a 'Mahant' (priest). It is further submitted that no such incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., was taken place.

¶16

As per prosecution case, they visited the place of the appellant thrice for treatment by adopting some spiritual practice. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that earlier on two occasions, no misbehave was done by the appellant, but on 06.07.2022, she was confined in a room by the appellant and committed rape with her. It is also alleged therein that due to incident, some blood was oozing from her genital part and on the advice of the appellant, the genital part was washed by the victim in washroom. The blood, which fell on the floor, was washed by the appellant.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of incident, victim's mother, brother and maternal grand daughter were also there, but the victim did not speak about the incident to them immediately and after coming back to the house, she narrated the incident. It is further submitted that the temple is well equipped with the CCTV cameras and the movement of the victim and other family members, who visited the temple, was also captured in the CCTV, in which, they are seen going back very comfortably. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that while rejecting Criminal Appeal 2798 of 2022, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial without giving adjournments to either of the parties, but till today, only 2 witnesses, i.e., victim and her mother (informant) have been examined, out of total 20 witnesses. It is also submitted that there is major contradictions in the depositions of the victim and her mother recorded before the trial court. It is next submitted that as the victim and the informant have already been

¶18

examined, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is, thus, submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 08.07.2022, is entitled for bail. It is lastly submitted that the appellant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial .

¶19

Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, he does not dispute the fact that admittedly, the victim had not made any complaint to her family members, those were present at the place of incident just after the alleged incident took place.

¶20

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel and going through the contents of F.I.R., judgment of the court below dated 30.03.2024, medico legal report of the victim, statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents including the photographs annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today, it is evident that while dismissing the earlier Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 2022, this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024 directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, but till today, only two witnesses have been examined out of total 20 witnesses. 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.

¶21

Impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Second Bail Application No. 37 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 376, 384, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya, is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let appellant, Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman Das 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 :-

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 VKS

¶29

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

Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahant Krishna Kumar Das @ Hanuman Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Uma Pandey Vs Dr. Indramani Tripathi, Vice Chairman Lko. Development Authority, Lko.

Jaman Singh Mehra and Another Vs Mr. Alok Kumar Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tejveer Singh Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police Establishment, U.P. Lko.

Vashram vs Ranvijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others

Masooq Ali @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sakir Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another