Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. against the order passed by the State Government whereby petitioner was suspended due to the fact that he was incarcerated in jail.

Petitioner contended that he had already been enlarged on bail and thereby there remains no reason to keep him suspended i.e. the ingredients to continue his suspension under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1999 ceased. Also, there was no charge sheet served upon petitioner. Petitioner relied on the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 where it was settled that suspension should not be allowed beyond a reasonable period.

High Court was of the view that petitioner was suspended under Rule 4(3)(a) of the Rules due to his incarceration in jail and since he was enlarged upon bail and the factual position was changed, thus, suspension order could not have passed after his release. Therefore, petitioner’s suspension order was quashed. [Awadhesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 68, order dated 10-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC praying for grant of anticipatory bail, holding it to be in the interest of justice to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.

The petitioner apprehended arrest in a criminal case registered under Sections 366, 342 and 376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case is made out against the bail petitioner because bare perusal of statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC itself suggest that she had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition and at no point of time, she was forced to join the company of bail petitioner. He prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above mentioned criminal case.

The High Court perused the record and found that the prosecutrix and the petitioner knew each other for a considerable period of time. The prosecutrix was unable to identify the house where the alleged incident happened. The statement of the owner of the house taken on rent by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were living their as husband and wife. The FIR was filed after a period of about two months from the date of alleged incident; this delay remained unexplained. The Court observed it to be a well settled principle that a person, until proved guilty is deemed to be innocent, and such a person cannot be allowed to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed. [Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 204, order dated 6.3.2018]