Appeal against the rejection of a bail application in a rape case. The High Court held that the Special Judge correctly considered the victim's statements and the heinous nature of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the bail application was rejected.
Bail application of the accused-appellant is rejected. Trial court directed to expedite trial.
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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1082 of 2021 Appellant :- Lal Babu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Lal Babu with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 10.08.2020, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 / Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1334 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 276 of 2020, under Section 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat.
The first information version is that on 30.06.2020 at about 07:00 A.M., the victim had gone to get her goats graze but when she came back, she told that at about 10:00 A.M., the accused-appellant committed rape on her. The family members went to the parents of the appellant and made complaint, whereupon, the family members used abusive language and the appellant also used abusive language and ran towards the field. The victim is mentally unstable and taking benefit of the same, rape was committed on her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness account of the alleged incident.
The informant wanted to purchase the house which was purchased by the father of the appellant from one Kusma Devi belonging to the family of the informant and being aggrieved by that the present false case has been lodged against the appellant by taking benefit of mental unstabled condition of the victim. The first information report version is totally false and there is no other witness to corroborate the first information report version. The learned Special Judge did not consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the bail application of the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the the prayer and have submitted that the victim is mentally unstabled and rape has been committed which finds support by the medical report also. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Considered the submission of both the sides. In support of the first information report version, the victim has given statement to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in both of her statements, she has fully supported the first information report version and has stated that appellant has committed rape on her by undressing her and by undressing himself. The medical report shows that the victim is unstabled in her mind, as such, the offence committed by the appellant becomes more serious and heinous.
There is no contradiction in the statements of the victim and in both of her statements, she has supported the fact that the appellant has committed rape on her.
The learned Special Judge has considered the statements of the victim given by her under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the magnitude of the offence and also taking into consideration that the offence has been committed on a girl of SC category who was mentally unstabled has rejected the bail application. As such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the bail application of the accused-appellant is rejected .
However, the trial court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the trial.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021 sailesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside.
Whether the rejection of the bail application was illegal or attended by infirmity.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Lal Babu
State of U.P.
Another
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
