Allowed

Anil Singh Rathore v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021CRLA/3128/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anil Singh Rathore appealed against the rejection of his bail application in an SC/ST atrocity case alleging sexual intercourse. The High Court set aside the lower court's order, finding the appellant had established a case for bail, and granted release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, and the impugned order rejecting bail is set aside.

Anil Singh Rathore Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3128 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Anil Singh Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd Imdad Siddiqui,Imran Ullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kripa Shanker Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

(Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 2 of 2021)

¶6

Amendment application is allowed.

¶7

For orders, see order of date passed on appeal.

¶8

Order Date :- 11.1.2021

IrfanUddin

. .

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3128 of 2020

¶13

Appellant :- Anil Singh Rathore Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd Imdad Siddiqui,Imran Ullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kripa Shanker Yadav

¶14

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶15

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant is permitted to amend the prayer clause of appeal by adding Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.

¶17

Heard Mohd. Imdad Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Kripa Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶18

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the appellant- Anil Singh Rathore with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah in Bail Application No. 3122 of 2019 rejecting the bail application in Case Crime No. 51 of 2019 under Sections 376-D, 328, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Raja ka Rampur, DistrictEtah.

¶19

Allegations in the first information report are that the applicant alongwith one Mohd. Hashim forcefully committed rape after intoxicating her on 6.8.2019. However, it is admitted by the complainant that since 2016 she was being subjected to sexual intercourse and yet she never raised her voice nor, lodged any complaint with the police.

¶20

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motive. It is further argued that the victim is a consenting party and is major. It is also submitted that there is no mark of injury upon the body of the victim indicating the alleged offence. Medical examination report also shows that it is not a case of rape. It is also argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant in the past. It is

¶21

next submitted that co-accused, Brij Ram has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51532 of 2019 vide order dated 22.11.2019. It is also submitted that though the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case, but in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.9.2019.

¶22

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. but they could not dispute the aforesaid fact that the victim had developed physical relation with Mohd. Hashim in the past.

¶23

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-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶27

Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶28

The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Anil Singh Rathore v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh Rathore v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shohrat Madar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Patel Vs State of Up and Another

Arjun @ Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gudgud Vs State of Up and Another

Govinda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Boby @ Shahenwaz Vs State of U.P. and Another