In bail appeal under SC/ST Act challenging bail refusal in abduction and rape case, Special Court allowed appeal, set aside impugned order, and released appellant on bail subject to bond and sureties.
Released on personal bond and two reliable sureties; impugned bail order set aside.
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. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2882 of 2019 Appellant :- Rajnish Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vipul Shukla
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vipul Shukla, leaned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 25.1.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/IInd Additional Session Judge, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No.170 of 2019, arising out of Case crime No.253 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Sehramau south, District Shahjahanpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution version, incident took place on 11.7.2018 and the first information report was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of three months on 13.10.2018 with the allegation that the daughter of complainant namely Rekha was enticed away by the Hasnu and the nephew of complainant namely Rachna was enticed away by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. He further submitted that both the victims are adult. As per the record of radiologist, the radiological age of both the victims are 19 years. He further submitted that both the victims are major and they had gone with the present accused and co-accused of their own sweet will and the victim Rachna has married with Rajnish and she was carrying pregnency of about five months and she has not supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 3.12.2018, having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the aforementioned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Rajnish be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 8.5.2019 Mini
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is a fit case for bail in an appeal against bail refusal under Sections 366, 376-D IPC and SC/ST Act given the protection from police custody.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order deleting the order should be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajnish
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
