Allowed

Himanshu Alias Amma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/4599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application. The court held that the Special Court erred in refusing bail, noting the investigation was complete and further detention served no useful purpose, and granted regular bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.4.2024 rejecting bail is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds.

Himanshu Alias Amma vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115839

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4599 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Himanshu Alias Amma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anoop Kumar Mishra,Pradhumn Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Akash Patel,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Appellant-Himanshu Alias Amma has filed this appeal to challenge the order dated 10th April, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, whereby his application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail pending trial in Case Crime No. 116 of 2024, under Sections 323, 354A, 376/511 IPC and Section 3(2)5 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, has been rejected.

¶7

The above FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant-Dayaram, who stated that on 25th March, 2024, his wife Rajbala had taken goats for grazing in the fields of Jagjeesh Padheet, where Himanshu @ Amma son of Sompal and another boy were present. Himanshu caught hold of his wife Rajbala and pulled her towards the fields of Jagjees, but when his wife Rajbala resisted, Himanshu gave her beatings. On these allegations, FIR was registered under Sections 323, 354A IPC and

¶8

Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the allegations contained in the FIR would itself show that no offence of alleged commission of attempt to rape is made out, but while filing the charge sheet against the appellant, the said offence has been added. He submits that the FIR is based upon the information given by the victim to her husband, but in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant's wife has not named the appellant as an accused. According to him, the prosecution case lacks consistency, therefore, the further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not be necessary. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is not based upon correct appreciation of the facts and the material on record, and he prays that the impugned order dated 10.4.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on regular bail.

¶10

The prayer is opposed by the learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, who has argued that the appellant's name is specifically mentioned in the FIR, and further, the case of the prosecution is also supported by the medical evidence of victim as she had suffered two contusions on her body. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the impugned order is based upon the correct appreciation of material on record. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the background as well as the fact that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on 09.04.2024 and the investigation in the case is complete and the trial in the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars.

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Meerut has erroneously refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant, therefore, the said order is not sustainable.

¶13

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 10th April, 2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Himanshu Alias Amma , be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶14

The appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Brijesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Alias Amma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Alias Amma v. State of U.P. 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

Shadab vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Tushar vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash vs State of Up and Another

Ghanshyam Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok vs State of U.P. and 3 Others