Farid Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

¶1

E Court

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36744

¶3

Court No. - 9

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1732 of 2025

¶5

Appellant :- Farid Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Pratap, Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. No one appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed by the accused/appellant against the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 376, 323, 328, 504, 506 and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi, whereby learned Special Judge, S.C. /ST Act, Hardoi, rejected the bail application filed by the appellant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant while arguing the appeal, has argued that even as per the statement of the mother of the victim, the victim was married and had left her husband and used to talk with the appellant. She also admitted that she had gone out of her own free will with the appellant. He further argued that the appellant has no criminal history and is in custody since 08.04.2025, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the fact that the victim is aged about 21 years and the statement of the mother of the victim itself does not support the prosecution

¶11

story, the appellant, who is in custody since 26.03.2025 and has no criminal history, is enlarged on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.

¶13

Impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C. /ST Act, Hardoi, is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused/appellant- Farid be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.30,000/- each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The accused/appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶16

(ii) The accused/appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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.

¶17

(iii) In case, the accused/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 accused/appellant 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.

¶18

(iv) The accused/appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313

¶19

Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the accused/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.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.6.2025 Arun

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Farid v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farid v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow 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

Jaan Ahmad Khan @ Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hcbl Cooperative Bank Ltd.Thru. Chairman Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sagar @ Ram Sagar Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Murat Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Ashish and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko and Another

Juvenile X Thru . His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others