Raghvendra Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144790

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2578 of 2024

Appellant :- Raghvendra Dixit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhinav Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Garun Pal Singh,Mukesh Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Raghvendra Dixit with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.2.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on persuasion of the present appellant Raghvendra Dixit Rupees Ten Lakhs were given by the informant and her husband, who belong to SC/ST community, to the agent of the Post Office but no receipt or passbook was handed over to them and when they asked for the same, the present appellant and his wife Laxmi Dixit abused and threatened them. FIR was lodged and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet against the present appellant.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that all the contents of the F.I.R. are wrong and as a matter of fact the informant Smt. Moni is the wife of one Sudhakar, who happens to be the servant of the informant. An FIR in case crime no. 113 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar was lodged against the appellant and his wife and on the instigation of the informant of the aforesaid case crime number, the present F.I.R. was lodged. The appellant has explained criminal history of two cases and bail orders thereof are appended with the affidavit. It is also submitted that there is no evidence at all on record to show that any money was given by the informant

¶10

to the present appellant. The appellant is in jail since 29.4.2023 i.e. for about one year and the alleged abusing and threatening made by the appellant and his wife by caste related name of the informant is said to be made on telephone, hence, no offence was committed in public view and on this ground it is also submitted that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the statement of Sudharkar, the husband of the informant, and other persons this fact has been explained that Rupees Ten Lakhs were handed over to the present appellant and his wife by the informant and one cheque in respect of the said liability was also given by the appellant to the informant.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and also the fact that no money on behalf of the informant or her husband was given to the accused appellant or his wife by way of any bank transaction or written instrument and whole delivery of money is said to be made in cash and there is no reliable independent witness of the same and criminal history of two cases against the appellant has been explained sufficiently, the period of incarceration, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Raghvendra Dixit involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)R

¶16

SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶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 will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(v). 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghvendra Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases