Allowed

Rohit Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024CRLA/6919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act and IPC. Finding that the trial would take considerable time and prosecution evidence remained to be tested, the Court set aside the lower court's order and granted regular bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143705

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6919 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rohit Saxena Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Kumar Shukla,Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Appellant-Rohit Saxena has filed this appeal to challenge the order dated 4th July, 2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hapur, whereby his application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail pending trial in Case Crime No. 414 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506, 386 IPC readwith Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that according to the complainant namely S.I. Raghuraj Singh, the accused made a telephonic call on his mobile phone and gave abuses to the senior police officers. Learned counsel submits that it is the case of the complainant that when he received the call, he had switched on the speaker mode of the mobile phone and the abuses allegedly given by the accused were heard by other officers, who were attending the meeting, but according to the learned

¶8

counsel, it is not believable that the complainant, who being a subordinate officer would allegedly keep speaker phone on for a long time to allow the alleged utterances to be heard by the other senior officers. According to learned counsel, except for the police official witnesses, no other person has allegedly witnessed the occurrence, therefore, in this peculiar background of this case, the further custody of the appellant may not be necessary.

¶9

Learned counsel has submitted that though in this case, the appellant-accused was arrested on 7th June, 2024, but before his arrest, another similar occurrence of a similar nature has been shown and a separate Case Crime No. 415 of 2024 was registered against the appellant-accused on the basis of a complaint by Sub-Inspector Paras Malik.

¶10

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 04.07.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on regular bail.

¶11

Learned State Counsel, while opposing the prayer, has argued that in support of the statement of the complainant, statements of three other police officials was also recorded during investigation of the case, who stated that they also heard the abuses allegedly given by the accused-appellant. However, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that so far

¶12

no documentary evidence relating to the meeting allegedly being conducted at the time of occurrence has been collected, though, according to the learned State Counsel, the investigation is still going on. Learned State Counsel further argued that the appellant-accused is also involved in thirteen other criminal cases, therefore, the impugned order is based upon the correct appreciation of material on record, and the appeal does not call for any interference.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, particularly, the material placed on record of the case, this Court finds that the charges set up by the prosecution against the accused would be tested on the strength of the prosecution evidence and the said onus is yet to be discharged. The appellant is in custody since his arrest on 07th June, 2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not be necessary. The material witnesses in the case are police officials and at present, there is nothing to indicate that there is any likelihood of their being won over.

¶14

A reading of the impugned order would show that the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hapur has erroneously refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused as it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

¶15

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 04th July, 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– Rohit Saxena , 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.

¶16

The appeal is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Brijesh

¶18

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

Rohit Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Saxena 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

Vimal Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Roshan Dwivedi vs State of Up and Another

Nitish Agarwal vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Rachna vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another