In a criminal appeal against bail rejection, the court found a case for bail following contradictions in prosecution statements and noting parity with released co-accused.
Appellant Vinod released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1188 of 2018
Appellant :- Vinod Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
The office report dated 5.5.2018 reflects that C.J.M., Farrukhabad has informed that notice has been served through police station concerned personally on respondent no.2, yet no one has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal.
Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad, in Bail Application No.11 of 2018 (Vinod vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.292 of 2017, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Qaimganj District Farrukhabad, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by a matured and married lady aged about 31 years. The first information report has been lodged for an inordinate delay of about 50 days. There are material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. The reason for falsely implication has also been detailed in the affidavit. Lastly, he contended that similarly situated co-accused Raj Kumar has been allowed bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.5794 of 2017, whose copy has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit and coaccused Gulab Singh has been allowed bail in Criminal Appeal No.942 of 2018 by an order dated 29.3.2018, copy of which has been produced by learned counsel for the appellant which is taken on record. He further submits that there is no distinction at all between the case of applicant and co-accused, who have been released on bail therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant-appellant may also be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the applicantappellant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail
has been made out.
In the result, appeal stands allowed. The order dated 5.2.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad, in Bail Application No.11 of 2018 (Vinod vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.292 of 2017, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Qaimganj District Farrukhabad, is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Vinod, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 13.8.2018
Hasnain
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant arising out of charges under Sections 376-D, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.
Whether a case for bail is made out given the contradictions in prosecution statements and similarity of case with co-accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod
State Of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
