Allowed

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024CRLA/2206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejection order. The appellant was released on bail after furnishing a bond and sureties, citing that the offences were non-cognizable in nature or required prior taking of consent, and noting the lack of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties; impugned order set aside.

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56578

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2206 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Satendra @ Satyendra Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singh Bisen Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 through R.P.A.D. Office has endorsed that neither envelope nor any acknowledgement has been received back.

¶7

The State has filed counter affidavit, enclosing therewith copy of written information provided to the opposite party no. 2. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 appears to have been sufficiently served, however, she is not represented.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is not willing to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant- Satendra @ Satyendra Patel for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1656 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0100 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)V and 3(2)Va S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

¶11

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. While drawing attention of this court towards FIR of the instant case as well as statements of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the prosecutrix has stated her date of birth as 01.02.2002 and was 22 years of age at the time of recording her statement and the investigating officer is

¶12

shown to have collected some evidence from a school wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is shown as 03.06.2005, however, even on the basis of material collected by the investigating officer the prosecutrix was major at the date and time of the alleged incident. It is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix in the FIR lodged by her as well as in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC has admitted to be in relationship with the appellant and if the statements of the prosecutrix are taken on its face, it will emerge that she was a consenting party. In this regard, the attention of this court has been drawn towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 164 CrPC wherein she has stated that for the last 7 years the appellant was making sexual relations with her and his family members were also ready to solemnize marriage with her, however, she is having an apprehension that they will oust her within 6 months of her marriage.

¶13

Highlighting above, it is submitted that the FIR of the instant case has been lodged only on the basis of apprehension and since the prosecutrix was major and has cohabited with her free wish/will, no offence has been committed by the appellant.

¶14

It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 10.05.2024. 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, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the fact that the age of ht prosecutrix at the relevant point of time was more than 18 years, no abnormality has been detected in her medical examination and she has admitted in the FIR as well in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC that she was in relationship with the appellant, they were cohabiting for the last 7 years from before lodging of the FIR, the fact that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix has raised an apprehension that though the family members of the appellant are ready to solemnize marriage of the appellant with her but she has apprehended that they will leave her within 6 months of marriage, the fact that the appellant is not having any previous criminal antecedents to his credit and he is in jail since 10.05.20024, charge-sheet in this case has already been filed, there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the

¶17

appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the appellant- Satendra @ Satyendra Patel involved in above-mentioned 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 MVS/-

¶27

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

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Veerpaal vs State of U.P. Thru .Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Shubham Singh @ Kirtivardhan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu Singh @ Kuldeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Darbari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. Lko.