Guddu Singh @ Jitendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5276

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3489 of 2024

Appellant :- Guddu Singh @ Jitendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Kumar Tiwari,Akhilesh Singh Chauhan

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Sapna Yadav,Smt.Arpita Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 2, Unnao.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Due to dispute of money between the parties, present F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant, his father and his uncle with false allegation that he committed rape with her at about 11 O'clock in the night when she was alone. In the meantime, her mother-in-law (saas) identified the accused while fleeing from the house in the light and also tried to catch him but he went away. Further submitted that on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. the police reported that incident was false and no such incident took place. Even though the F.I.R. was lodged in compliance of order passed by the learned court concerned on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is no any other material on record to show that rape was committed by the appellant with the victim who was married lady. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 19.09.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party as well as AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant Guddu Singh @ Jitendra involved in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Auras, District Unnao be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Anurag Singh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu Singh @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Singh @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Rais @ Rahees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sonam Maurya Thru.Her Husband Ashish Maurya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Snehlata Dwivedi (Corpus/Detenue) Thru. Her Husband Dilip Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Irfan Khan Thru. His Wife Smt. Neha Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner of Police, Lko and 6 Others

Snehlata Dwivedi (Corpus/Detenue) Thru. Her Husband Dilip Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others