Special Judge rejected bail under SC/ST Act and IPC. Appeal filed alleging false implication and lack of medical corroboration. High Court allowed bail by finding case made out and setting aside impugned order.
Impugned bail order dated 11.04.2018 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on specified 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. - 3684 of 2018
Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
As indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served personally on respondent No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat passed in Bail Application No. 508 of 2018 (Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar Vs State), arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Rajpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is more than 40 years of age and their fields are adjoining and on this count altercations used to take place between them on several occasions. The F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after five days of the alleged incident. It is pointed out that the medical report does not support the prosecution version of rape. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, 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 is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant- Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar, 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 :- 7.9.2018 Vikas/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a case for bail is made out given the medical report does not support the prosecution version of rape and the appellant has no criminal history.
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting bail by failing to consider the nature of accusation and unlikelihood of future trial conclusion.
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar
State Of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
