Allowed

Ranjeet Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024CRLA/2950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail. Setting aside the rejection, the court imposed conditions for bail on the appellant in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Ranjeet Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82891

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2950 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ranjeet Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajit Ranjan,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jairam Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

None appears for the informant although notice has been served.

¶8

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside order dated 23.08.2024, passed in Case Crime No.407 of 2024 under sections 376 (2) (n), 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(2) (v) and 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mandion, district Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that alleged incident took place between 15.06.2016 to 06.03.2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 09.07.2024. There is unexplained delay of more than eight years. Appellant has been falsely implicated. Even as per the statement of victim, she is 33 years old lady. Both were having physical relationship for about eight years. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence in support of prosecution case. The appellant has no criminal history. The statement of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C is at variance. He is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024; varied statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C;

¶13

lack of any corroborative medical evidence and without commenting upon merit of the case, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record.

¶14

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below is liable to be and is hereby set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶16

Let the appellant/applicant Ranjeet Kumar Maurya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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.

¶22

(vi) In case the applicant 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Renu/-

¶24

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

Ranjeet Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh @ Munna Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shailesh Gupta Shooter Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dayaram Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Farmaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another