Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024CRLA/6922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of the appellant's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an SC/ST cases. The court held that further detention was unnecessary as the appellant had already been granted bail in a previous appeal and material witnesses posed no threat. The impugned order was set aside, and regular bail was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 04.07.2024 set aside; bail application accepted; appellant Rohit Saxena ordered to be released on regular bail subject to bonds.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143704

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6922 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. 415 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 on a similar set of allegations, which are the subject matter of the present appeal, a day prior to the registration of the case, a Case Crime No. 414 of 2024 was registered against the appellantaccused at the instance of Sub-Inspector Raghuraj Singh and the offence is also allegedly committed in the similar manner, therefore, it would show that the police has falsely implicated the appellant. Learned counsel submits that both the cases are registered at

¶8

the instance of the police officials and it would show that the police is inimical towards the appellant, but the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hapur has not appreciated the background of the case, while refusing bail to him. He prays that the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on regular bail.

¶9

Learned State Counsel, while opposing the prayer, has not disputed the fact that on a similar kind of allegations by Sub-Inspector Raghuraj Singh, the Case Crime No. 414 of 2024 was also registered. However, according to the learned State Counsel, since the allegations against the accused are serious, therefore, the trial court has rightly declined his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.

¶10

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 appellant has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 4th September, 2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 6919 of 2024. 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Brijesh

¶16

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