Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Srivastava And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13210
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3540 of 2024
Appellant :- Rajesh Srivastava And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Secy. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramendra Yadav,Sharad Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. It is evident from the record that notice has already been sent to the complainant, but none has put in appearance on his behalf and, therefore, the matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application bearing Compute Registration No. 1654/224 arising out of Case Crime No. 1335 of 2009, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case and after going through the F.I.R., no offence is made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was challenged before the writ Court by means of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 6887 of 2009, in which, protection was granted vide order dated 21.07.2009 with the direction that till filing of the charge sheet or report under Section 169 Cr.P.C., the appellants shall not be arrested. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner only on the basis of general allegations, which was challenged by the appellants by filing Application u/s 482 No. 180 of 2010, in which, stay order was passed on 19.01.2010. Thereafter, aforesaid petition was dismissed on 21.04.2024 with the liberty to to the appellants/applicants to file discharge application at the appropriate stage. It is next submitted that after rejection of the aforesaid petition, an application for anticipatory bail was filed before the trial court, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 07.08.2024 with the observation that Section 18 of SC/ST Act prohibits to entertain the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is vehemently submitted that the trial court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prithviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 427 and Shajan Sakaria Vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants never misused the liberty granted by this Court and is ready to cooperate in the trial. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that protection was granted by this Court to the appellants twice. He also does not dispute the legal pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned judgment as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that during the course of investigation, protection was granted by a Division Bench of this Court to the appellants in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 6887 of 2009. Thereafter, charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer was also challenged by the appellants by filing Application u/s 482 No. 180 of 2010, in which, protection was again granted to the appellants. It is also evident that there is no evidence that the appellants ever misused the protection/liberty granted by this Court.
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.
7. Impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application bearing Compute Registration No. 1654/224 arising out of Case Crime No. 1335 of 2009, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad is hereby set aside.
8. Let appellants,Rajesh Srivastava and Raj Kumar Verma 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 :-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
9. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025
VKS
