Allowed

Arif @ Asif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024CRLA/168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against rejection of bail in a case involving Sections 376D, 452, 328 IPC, Section 67 IT Act and Section 3(2)(5a) SC/ST Act. Court found variance between the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement and no medical support for allegations, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each, subject to conditions.

Arif @ Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43383

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 168 of 2024 Appellant :- Arif @ Asif Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA, Shri Akhil Anand, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶6

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hardoi, whereby rejecting the Bail Application No. 3696/2023 (Arif Vs. State of U.P.) filed by the accused/appellant for his release in Case Crime No. 163 of 2023, under Sections 376D, 452, 328 IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tandiyawan, District Hardoi.

¶7

The fact in brief that an FIR was filed under Section 376D, 452, 328 I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act alleging that the 3 persons named in the FIR had made the photo viral, the applicant was not named for the offence of making the photo viral although the allegations were leveled that the applicant was also involved with the said co-accused. Subsequently in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the victim changed the story and stated that the three persons including the applicant had committed the offence of making photo viral. It was also stated that some injection was administered on the victim because of which she became unconscious. The medical report on record did not indicate any major injury whatsoever. It is further argued that out of the three accused named in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC, the chargesheet has been filed only against the two persons only.

¶8

Considering the huge variance in the stand made under Section 164 CrPC not even reflected in the FIR, coupled with the fact that the medical report does not support the allegations leveled, the applicant, who is in custody since 26.11.2023 and has no criminal antecedent is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

The appeal is allowed and is disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶10

Let the accused/appellant- Arif @ Asif be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Sections 376D, 452, 328 IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tandiyawan, District Hardoi, on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶11

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶12

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶13

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶14

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶17

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶18

(viii) 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.

¶19

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.6.2024/Raj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arif @ Asif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif @ Asif 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

Santosh @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Shiv Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kuldeep @ Babu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Gautam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ashish Gupta @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.