Allowed

Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2021CRLA/2788/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging a bail rejection, the High Court allowed the bail application, quashing the impugned order. The Court emphasized inconsistencies in the prosecution story and lack of medical evidence regarding rape allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions of attendance, no adjournments, and possible proclamation for non-appearance. Impugned bail rejection order quashed.

Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2788 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Vipul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri S.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that he does not want to file counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and wants to argue the case.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi whereby the Bail Application No. 1468 of 2021 of the appellant was rejected in Case Crime No. 196 of 2021, u/s 387, 354-D, 504, 506, 376-dha, 452 IPC and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself against the applicant with the allegation that the appellant used to tease and blackmail her and extended threats to her by making certain photographs viral and stared persuaded her to have a relationship with the appellant. It is further contended that the FIR was lodged by the victim, who is a married woman and at every stage of the investigation, she has tried to change the version of the prosecution story. There is no allegation of rape leveled in the FIR but in her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has leveled the allegation of rape upon her by the appellant. There is no justification coming forward for this change of the prosecution story and at every stage, she has changed the texture of the case most serious and grim. Not only this, she has declined to get herself admitted for any medical examination. The learned counsel for the appellant has annexed the call details report between the appellant and the opposite party no. 2 as annexure no. 7 to the petition which shows that they were in the intense relationship with each other.

¶9

The Court has failed to appreciate the way and manner in which the prosecution story has developed when the victim herself is the informant of the present case.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant has filed the recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipal Batham Vs. State of U.P. 2021 (115) ACC 564 in which it has been hold that "Trial Judge has materially erred as he has not discussed what is the evidence to suggest that the act was committed because of the caste of the prosecutrix. For maintaining the conviction under section 376, IPC, medical evidence has to be ion conformity with the oral testimony. The chain of incident goes to show that the prosecutrix was not raped as would be clear from the provision of Section 375 read with section 376 of IPC. The consent of the

¶11

prosecutrix was too conscious and with a deliberate choice which can be detected from the factual date."

¶12

Sri Chandra Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as Sr S. N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶14

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶15

Let the appellant Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶18

(iv) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE

¶19

APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶21

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C. community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶22

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation the present criminal appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi is hereby quashed.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.10.2021 Nisha

Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bitturaja @ Aman Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asgar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Anothers

Santosh Singh 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Agrawal @ Abhishek Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Anjar and Another Vs State of U.P.