Allowed

Manoj Kumar @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024CRLA/3303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a rape case involving SC/ST provisions. Citing contradictory victim statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and absence of criminal antecedents, the court found the lower court failed to appreciate the record, set aside its order, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions.

Manoj Kumar @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81006

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3303 of 2024 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar @ Monu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the informant, although, notices to the complainant are served.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 21.09.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2081/2024 arising out of case crime No. 217/2024, under Sections 376/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)Ba, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that daughter-in-law of the informant along with her husband was going on 27/06/2024 at evening 6:00'o clock at Katra Bazar for the treatment, on the route Manoj@ Monu met his son and told that he is also going to Katra bazaar, then Deep Narayan asked to Manoj Kumar for taking her wife at Katra Bazar. When Deep Narayan reached at Katra Bazar, his wife was not there. In spite of searching his wife, he came back to house and asked from Manoj Kumar about his wife, then Manoj Kumar started abusing and also told that he has done everything with his wife you may do what you want. The complainant further added that he came to know about his daughter-in-law through the social media when she was left to district hospital by the police in unconscious position and after getting the aforesaid information, he immediately reached at District Hospital where his daughter-in-law told to him that Manoj Kumar took her away to forest in spite of market where he committed rape by beating her. He also added that the treatment of her daughter-in-law is going on at District Hospital Pratapgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are contrary. Medical does not support the prosecution case. There are no injuries found on the private part of the victim. Although, there

¶10

are multiple injuries on the body of the victim as well as the applicant, however, the same are attributable to the accident as both of them fell from motorcycle. The husband of the victim gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.07.2024 and according to him, the police got admitted the victim while she was unconscious, however, from perusal of the medical report dated 28.06.2024, it is clear that the victim was admitted by her husband and not by the police. It is a case of false implication.

¶11

It has been further submitted that in fact on the date of the incident, both of them were going to market. While both of them were riding on motorcycle, they met with the accident and both of them sustained injuries. During medical examination, the victim has stated before the doctor that she was left in the market after committing rape, whereas, according to the prosecution case, the victim was found in serious condition and from where, she was taken to the hospital.

¶12

It has been further submitted that the victim is married lady aged about 35 years and has six years old male child. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is languishing in jail since 29.06.2024 without having any criminal antecedents. There is no likelihood that the appellantapplicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the contrary statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2024 without having any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.09.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2081/2024 arising out of case crime No. 217/2024, under Sections 376/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)Ba, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh, is set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant-applicant/ Manoj Kumar @ Monu, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶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 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 appellant 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 appellant 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 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 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 :- 4.12.2024 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar @ Monu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shatrohan @ Shatrughan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others