Allowed

Aneesh Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CRLA/5666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellants' criminal appeals and set aside the impugned order dismissing their bail application. The court granted regular bail, noting the investigation was complete, the trial would not conclude soon, and the appellants' further detention served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Aneesh Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120715

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5666 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Aneesh Rajbhar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5664 of 2024

¶7

Appellant :- Bablu Rajbhar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶9

Appellants- Aneesh Rajbhar and Bablu Rajbhar have filed these separate appeals under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, whereby their joint application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail, during pendency of trial in Case Crime No.257 of 2020, under Sections 363, 352, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsels for the appellants have argued that the complainant lodged the first information report on 28th March, 2020 with the allegations that on 25th March, 2020 his daughter was enticed away by Aneesh Rajbhar, who had

¶11

also taken away Rs.5000/- and some jewellery, but the girl on recovery got her statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she stated that nothing wrong was done with her by Aneesh Rajbhar. Learned counsel argued that according to the complainant herself, on the next day, her father came to the house of Aneesh Rajbhar and the accused also asked her to go back to her house. Learned counsel has further pointed out that even in the statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim has not attributed anything against the accused. Learned counsel submits that the final report under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure stands submitted before the trial court, therefore, the appellants deserve bail. Learned counsel refers to the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 and pointed out that the Special Court, Varanasi has not carefully examined the prosecution case while refusing bail to the appellants, and prays that the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 be set aside and the appellants be released on regular bail.

¶12

Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶13

The prayer is opposed by the learned State Counsel, who has argued that even if, the girl is said to have friendship with the accused Annesh Rajbhar, even then, it would be an offence, as she was minor. However, it is not disputed that the investigation in the case is complete and final report under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. Learned State Counsel has argued that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation, which

¶14

shows involvement of accused in the alleged crime.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the truthfulness of the allegations by complainant father and statements of victim would be tested during trial on the basis of the prosecution evidence, and the said onus is yet to be discharged by the prosecution. The material witnesses in the case is either the complainant or the police officials and at this stage, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. The appellants are confined in judicial custody after their arrest on 7.5.2024 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the appellants, as their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. A reading of the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 shows that the Special Court, Varanasi has erroneously refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants- accused, therefore, the said order is not sustainable.

¶16

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellants be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶17

The appeals are allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.7.2024/Raj

¶19

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

Aneesh Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Rajbhar 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

Bal Mukund Rai @ Ballu vs State of U.P.

Sahana Bashir and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Sharma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam Thakur vs State of Up and Another

Tha Girraj Ji Maharaj Mukharbind Mukut vs State of Up and Another

Bhole vs State of U.P. and Another