Shravan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13436

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3711 of 2024

Appellant :- Shravan Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Prashant Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant, but none has put in appearance on her behalf and, therefore, the case is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 2169 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 366 of 2024, under Sections 342, 504, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that it is the admitted case of the victim that she was in friendship with the appellant. It is also submitted that the victim was insisting for marriage, but when the appellant denied for the same, the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim on the basis of incorrect facts. It is next submitted that call detail report as well as other evidences provided by the appellant was not considered by the Investigating Officer and filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant is having criminal antecedent of 11 cases, details of which are mentioned in para 17 of the appeal. It is

¶10

vehemently submitted that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was a major and prudent lady at the time of incident. However, the court below failed to appreciate the evidences in correct perspective and passed the impugned order. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 30.09.2024, is entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that victim has supported the prosecution version. However, he does not dispute the fact that the victim has admitted in her statement that she was in conversation with the appellant being her friend.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the F.I.R., impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that appellant and victim were in friendship since last three months from the date of incident. It is also evident that the victim was major and prudent lady at the time of incident, but all these facts were not considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order.

¶13

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.

¶14

Impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 2169 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 366 of 2024, under Sections 342, 504, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Shravan Kumar Singh 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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 VKS

¶22

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

Shravan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

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

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Deepak Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Soni Thru. Her Husband Ankush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramcharan Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Puran Chand Sharma vs Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. and Another