Vijay Kumar @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:400

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3220 of 2024

Appellant :- Vijay Kumar @ Ramu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gyanoday Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that C.J.M., Shrawasti vide its report dated 14.11.2024 has reported that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance, therefore, matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 26.9.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shravasti in Bail Application No. 746 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 128 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sonwa, District Shrawasti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that on the insistence of the victim, appellant went to Mumbai and nothing wrong was done with the victim, but due to annoyance, F.I.R. in question was lodged by the informant. He also submits that during the course of investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNS, in which, she categorically stated that on her insistence, appellant went Mumbai and nothing wrong was done with her, however, they were caught, when they were coming back. He also submits that victim has denied her medico legal examination but all these facts were not considered by the court below, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 5.8.2024, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute the fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that on the insistence of the victim, appellant went to Mumbai and victim also denied for her medico legal examination. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 26.9.2024.

¶11

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶12

Order dated 26.9.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shravasti in Bail Application No. 746 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 128 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sonwa, District Shrawasti, is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Vijay Kumar @ Ramu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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,

¶16

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 applicant 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.1.2025

¶20

Gaurav/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar @ Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @ Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. 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

Manohar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Anwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko. and 3 Others

Sarvajeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko.

Shivam Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Vinod Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow