Allowed

Anil Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024CRLA/3054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail appeal against the bail refusal order of the Special Judge. The court set aside the impugned order, finding substance in inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim's statement, and granted bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail refusal order set aside; Anil Soni released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to strict conditions.

Anil Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71107

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3054 of 2024 Appellant :- Anil Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajey Singh,Vandana Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama in Court today on behalf of the respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vinay Kumar Sahi, and learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent and Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for the 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 11.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 1884/12A/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0078 of 2024, under Sections 363, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5 ए) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich.

¶8

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 11.09.2024, it is stated that according to the story of prosecution an unknown person enticed away the minor daughter, aged about seventeen years, of the informant and therefore, an FIR was lodged against unknown person on 22.02.2024 under Section 363 IPC registered as Case Crime No. 0078 of 2024 at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District - Bahraich. This FIR indicates that on 21.02.2024, the victim at about 04 p.m. on her own came to her house i.e. house of the informant. In other words, the victim came to her parental house on 21.02.2024.

¶9

It is also stated that the FIR, in view of the aforesaid, was lodged on the basis of facts narrated by the victim herself.

¶10

It is also stated that on 22.02.2024, the statement of the victim was recorded. In this statement, the victim completely changed the version of the FIR and levelled allegations against the appellant. According to the statement of the victim on 20.02.2024 at about 07 p.m., the appellant alone abducted the victim aged about sixteen years and the victim, thereafter, before the Magistrate concerned also stated in the same tune.

¶11

It is also stated that from a conjoint reading of the FIR and the statement of the victim it is evident that the story/case of prosecution is not intact.

¶12

It is also stated that the independent witnesse(s), based upon the information received, before the Investigating Officer, stated that on returning back on 21.02.2024, the victim informed that on 20.02.2024 at about 07 p.m. the appellant abducted the victim and if this story is correct then the said fact ought to have been mentioned in the FIR itself which has not been mentioned.

¶13

It is also stated that the appellant has been implicated by the victim only to create cloud on the correct story related to the victim herself.

¶14

Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 11.09.2024 and having no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Shri Vinay Kumar Sahi, and learned A.G.A.-I for the Staterespondent and Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶16

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the the contents of the FIR and subsequent story developed by the victim/prosecution and the age of the victim and the appellant as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶18

Order dated 11.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 1884/12A/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0078 of 2024, under Sections 363, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5 ए) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich is set aside.

¶19

Let appellant Anil Soni , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶20

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶21

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(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

¶24

police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶26

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶27

(viii) 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.

¶28

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶29

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶30

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶31

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

Anil Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Soni 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Ji Thakur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Dr. Samriddhi Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Sasiya Vs State of U.P.

Dharam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhagauti Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anil Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another