Allowed

Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024CRLA/2142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the appellant Rajesh Sharma in a case involving offences under SC/ST Act and IPC sections. Citing parity with a co-accused who was already granted bail, the court set aside previous bail orders and released the appellant on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting bail were set aside; the appellant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific undertakings regarding court attendance.

Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68231

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2142 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rajesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, this appeal is being decided with the assistance of 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 12.06.2024 passed by District and Sessions Judge/Incharge Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 177 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda and the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1209 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 177 of 2023 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he is in jail since 21.03.2024. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Gopal Singh @ Devendra Pratap Singh having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2023. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused - Gopal Singh @ Devendra Pratap Singh has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for

¶12

parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused - Gopal Singh @ Devendra Pratap Singh, ground of parity as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

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 .

¶14

The order dated 12.06.2024 passed by District and Sessions Judge/Incharge Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 177 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda and the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1209 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 177 of 2023 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, are hereby set aside .

¶15

Let appellant - Rajesh Sharma 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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under

¶20

Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, M.D., U.P. Jal Nigam, Lko.

Sher Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Dr. Smt. Vidhatri Devi Mishra Vs Mrs. Leena Jauhari, Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I, Lko.

Devesh Khare vs Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran, the Addl. Chief Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Govt.Lko. and Another

Pintu @ Akhilesh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Vijay Prakash vs Mr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager, Iti Ltd., Rae Bareli