Allowed

Altaf @ Aftab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024CRLA/2135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal under the S.C./S.T. Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's application to quash the trial court's rejection of bail. The court noted the victim was an adult who allegedly consented, no injuries were found, and the FIR was indirectly lodged, suggesting false implications. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to standar

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or committing f

Altaf @ Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58203

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2135 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Altaf @ Aftab Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Prakash Narain Tiwari,Bal Keshwar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

As per report of the office dated 12.08.2024, having regard to the notice issued to opposite party no. 2/victim through the S.H.O. concerned, she has been sufficiently served and the State along with its counter affidavit at page-41 has also enclosed copy of written communication received from the opposite party no. 2 with regard to the information given to her pertaining to pendency of the instant proceedings before this Court, however, she is not represented.

¶7

Heard Shri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant- Altaf @ Aftab for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Shravasti in Bail Application/392/2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.037 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 342 IPC read with Sections 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Sonwa, District Shravasti, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the bailappeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. The age of the prosecutrix/victim is about 28 years. She is a married lady, having a child of 10 years, however, her husband has died and the allegations, which have been levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, are patently false and concocted and could not be believed. It is further submitted that FIR of the instant case has been lodged by moving application under section 156(3) CrPC and a perusal

¶10

of this application would itself reveal that pertaining to the alleged incident occurred on 29.12.2023 application to the Superintendent of Police could only be given on 07.02.2024 and no explanation in this regard of such a huge delay has been given, moreover, if a holistic view is taken of the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, it will emerge that the prosecutrix/victim is a consenting party who had travelled with the appellant and other accused persons with her free-wish and will and since she was major, no offence, in fact, has been committed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged with due consultation with a legal professional against 3 accused persons, however, after investigation charge-sheet could only be filed against the appellant, therefore, the major portion of the story of the prosecutrix/victim has also been disbelieved by the investigating officer.

¶11

It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 30.03.2024. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has committed an heinous crime and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that the age of the prosecutrix/victim was about 28 years at the date and time of the alleged incident; the FIR has been lodged against 3 accused persons but the charge-sheet could only be filed against the appellant; the FIR has been lodged by moving application under section 156(3) CrPC; the information to the Superintendent of Police pertaining to the incident allegedly occurred on 29.12.2023 could only be given on 07.02.2024; no injury etc. has been found on the person of the prosecutrix/victim at the time of her medical examination; the appellant is in jail in this case since 30.03.2024; he is not having any previous criminal antecedents and it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant with considerable force that if all the attending facts and circumstances of the case are taken on its face, it will emerge that the prosecutrix/victim was a consenting party, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant and learned Trial/Special Court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

¶14

In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside . Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

¶15

Let the appellant- Altaf @ Aftab involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case

¶22

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Altaf @ Aftab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altaf @ Aftab 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

Vimal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Meraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow and Another

Mumtaj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vishnu Singh @ Bauwa vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another