Allowed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024CRLA/2220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against bail rejection set aside. High Court allowed bail allowing appellant to file personal bond and two sureties, with specific conditions regarding attendance and records under trial to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to avoid adjournments and ensure presence on recorded dates.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4909

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2220 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balak Ram

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No. 132 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 34 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the offences are pity in nature and the appellant is in jail since 04.02.2023. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and the trial is also not going on. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 04.02.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the appellant, but they do not dispute the fact that the alleged offences are punishable upto 7 years. They also concedes the fact that the appellant is in jail since 04.02.2023.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned

¶11

counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the alleged offences are punishable upto 7 years. It is also evidence that the appellant is in jail since 04.02.2023.

¶12

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.

¶13

Impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No. 132 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 34 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant, Mahendra Kumar 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 :-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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

¶18

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 Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 VKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar 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

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.