Allowed

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2024CRLA/92/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order rejecting bail. The court held that the trial court failed to consider the prolonged delay in filing the FIR despite the alleged association between parties, thus granting bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; the appellant is released on bail furnished by a personal bond and two sureties.

Khalid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18243

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 92 of 2024 Appellant :- Khalid Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abdul Muqeet Khan,Farhan Alam Osmany Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Shankar Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

On 26.02.2023, following order was passed:

¶6

"1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vijay Shankar Trivedi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

2. On the request of learned counsel for respondent no. 2, list this case on 28.02.2024 at 11.30 a.m. "

¶8

As the name of Shri Vijay Shankar Trivedi Advocate is shown as counsel for respondent in the cause list and he was also informed by the learned counsel for the appellant about listing of the case but he is not present. As the matter is pending since 10.01.2024, therefore, the same is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.8620/2023 arising out of Case Crime No.662/2023 under Sections 376, 504, 506I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case only with the intention to release money from him. He further submitted that the victim is a major lady aged about 31 years and is having two children. As per the prosecution case, in the month of July/August, 2021, appellant stopped the victim and proposed that he will facilitate some employment to her and also asked for details of her husband and children then she stated that her husband is no more and she is having two children then she went back to her home for cooking food for her children. It is

¶12

further stated that the appellant came to the house of the victim in the month of August, 2021 at about 10:15 AM and forcibly made physical relation with the victim and when she started weeping then he gave her five hundred rupees and requested her not to take any action, thereafter, appellant started visiting her house in absence of her children for making physical relation on the pretext of marriage. After about one year, victim insisted for marriage then he denied and also started beating and abusing the victim.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case, the prosecution case as stated by the victim is admitted then she came in contact with the appellant in the month of July/August, 2021 and she was in relation with him for the period of about one year (till August, 2022) but in her statement, she also admitted that she met with the appellant lastly in the month of March/April, 2023 but the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged on 26.09.2023. He further submitted that the medico-legal examination of the victim was also conducted but it has no force because admittedly, the victim met with the appellant in the month of March/April, 2023. He further submitted that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 11.10.2023, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution story and charge sheet has already been filed but he did not dispute this fact that as per the prosecution case, the incident was taken place in the month of July/August, 2021.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that as per the prosecution case, victim was in association with the appellant since August, 2021 and in her statement, she stated that after one year, she insisted for marriage on which, he denied but she did not make any complaint to anyone and thereafter, in September, 2023, F.I.R. of case in question was lodged. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application

¶17

No.8620/2023 is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the appellant- Khalid Khan involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 V. Sinha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maheshwari Dayal Pandey vs Sri Prem Chand Yadav, District Education Officer, Gonda and Others

Dr. Sandeep Pathak vs Sri Syham Sunder Singh, Regional Higher Education Officer, Kanpur and Others

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi

Khalid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Shanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Ranjeet Kumar (in Summoning Order Ranjeet) Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another