Allowed

Vishal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024CRLA/5236/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal accepting bail application of appellant Vishal against dismissed order of Special Judge under the SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities), citing completion of investigation without trial commencement and lack of necessity for detention.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.04.2024 setting aside; bail application accepted; appellant released on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds.

Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139839

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5236 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vishal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Vishal- Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Firozabad, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail, during pendency of trial in Case Crime No.153 of 2024, under Sections 342, 376, 506, 366 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad has been dismissed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant- accused has argued that according to the complainant his daughter aged 18 years had left home on 14th March, 2024 and he suspected that accused Vishal had enticed her away. He submits that initially the first information report was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, but subsequently on the basis of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC etc. have been added. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of complainant's daughter recorded under Section

¶8

161 Cr.P.C. to point out that it is categorically stated by her that nothing wrong was done to her, who was known to the accused appellant for the last seven- eight months and no allegation of rape has been made. According to him, the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 denying the concession of bail to the accused is not based upon proper appreciation of the case set up by the prosecution, therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶9

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

¶10

Learned State Counsel while opposing the prayer has argued that not only the complainant suspected involvement of the accused- appellant in the commission of crime, but even his daughter had also specifically named the accused in her statements. However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned State Counsel that the victim had refused for her medical examination. Learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal, as the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 is based upon proper appreciation of the prosecution case.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above background, this Court finds that the investigation of the case is complete, but the trial is yet to commence. The material witness in the case are either the complainant, his daughter or the police officials and at this stage, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Further, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, and the case set up by the prosecution

¶12

would be tested on the basis of the evidence to be adduced during trial, therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the further detention of the appellant may not be necessary for any useful purpose, who is confined in judicial custody after his arrest on 16.03.2024.

¶13

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 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 Vishal 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Raj

¶16

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

Vishal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal 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

Ram Chandra Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kishan Pal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Saifi Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohsin Raza @ Mausim vs State of Up and Another

Nitish Agarwal vs State of Up and Another