Allowed

Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2024CRLA/1695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail, holding that the ingredients for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act appeared missing from the F.I.R. and statement. The appellant was released on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; bail granted to the appellant with conditions.

Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:85286

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1695 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha,Mohammad Salman

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Bail application No.437/2024, arising out of case crime No.342/2023, under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the appeal submits that, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing as claimed by the prosecution has been committed by the appellant.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire Rs.60,000/- has been returned to the victim still he has been falsely implicated. Appellant has no criminal history. No useful purpose will be served to keep the appellant in custody. The appellant undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

It is further submitted that, the appellant is languishing in jail in this matter since 02.04.2024. Charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted. There is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, period of incarceration gone into by the applicant prima facie from perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 3(i)(r) &3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act appears to be missing, applicant has no criminal history and without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Bail application No.437/2024, arising out of case crime No.342/2023, under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur, is set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant-applicant Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶21

(v) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶23

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.

¶24

The pending application, if any, too stands disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaichand Kumar Maurya @ Putan 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Ors.

Lukman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Gaurav Mishra @ Prachand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Sandeep Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Priyanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Shivam Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.