In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the order rejecting the appellant's bail. The court allowed the appeal and released the accused on bail after the prosecution failed to justify the rejection.
Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; accused to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2148 of 2021
Appellant :- Saurabh Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Harshita Raghuvanshi,Shashi Prakash Rai,Shrinath Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shrinath Dwivedi and Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned brief holder for the State informs that the notice on the informant is personally served on 13.04.2021.
However, in this regard, I have also perused the ofÏce report dated 02.08.2021, whereby indication is apparent that the notice sent on opposite party no.2 has not been received as yet.
In view of the submission raised by the Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned brief holder for the State, the notice is deemed to be served sufÏciently.
Though, sufÏcient time has elapsed, but no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is being heard on its merit.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 08.03.2021, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 388 of 2020, under Sections - 376, 504, 506, 406 and 420 I.P.C. and Section - 3(2)V of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Shivkuti, District - Prayagraj (Allahabad).
Crux contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in this case, in so far as the allegation of rape in concerned, that is not sustainable in the eye of law, for the reason that the relationship was admittedly consensus and it continues for almost ten years and the prosecutrix of her own freewill established physical relationship with the appellant. It so happened that the last meeting of the appellant with the prosecutrix was in the year 2017. However, in 2019, the appellant got married, which was objected to and offended by the prosecutrix and out of grudge, she lodged baseless F.I.R. making allegations therein that rape has been committed upon her. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in Criminal Law Journal (2019 CRL. L. J. 1169) and submitted that in such consensus relationship, where promise to marriage continues and at subsequent later stage some objection is raised, then it should not be treated to be commission of offence of crime. The other charges are also ancillary charges, in order to strengthen the gravity of the offence, that too is not sustainable for the contention as above. No criminal breach of trust was ever committed by the appellant. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. However, learned A.G.A. has not disputed the aforesaid facts.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.03.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Saurabh Pal Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall not be construed to have any reflection on merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial court while deciding the trial.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 S Rawat
Digitally signed by Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra Date: 2021.08.05 14:59:54 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against the order rejecting bail should be allowed.
Whether the relationship was based on consensus defeating the rape allegation.
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Referred¶11
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in Criminal Law Journal (2019 CRL. L. J. 1169)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Saurabh Pal Singh
State of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
