Allowed

Bandhu Ram Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2021CRLA/727/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal appeal filed by an appellant challenging his bail rejection in a SC/ST Act case. The judgment noted the victim's shifting stand and conflicting medical evidence regarding the alleged assault. Finding the prosecution story flimsy, the court granted bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was allowed, the bail rejection order dated 29.9.2020 was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with specific conditions including cooperation in the trial and abiding

Bandhu Ram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 727 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Bandhu Ram Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Dhiresh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of appellant today in the Court are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Dhiresh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed targeting the bail rejection order dated 29.9.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly in Bail Application No.2817 of 2020 (CNR No.UPBR01-007263/2020) (Bandhu Ram Maurya Vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime No.465 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452, 294, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Meerganj, District-Bareilly. The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.10.2019.

¶8

Office report dated 12.4.2021 clearly shows that the notices were duly served upon opposite party no.2 but she has chosen not to engage any counsel to contest her case nor filed any counter affidavit, hence, opposite party no.2 shall remain unrepresented. With the aid and help of learned A.G.A., this criminal appeal is being decided on merits of the case.

¶9

It is astonishing and surprising to see that a person is behind the bars from October, 2019 on an entirely flimsy prosecution story narrated by none other than the victim herself. Through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C the present F.I.R. was registered on 23.12.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 28.10.2018 u/s 147, 354, 452, 294, 364, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act against five named accused persons including the applicant alleging that they intruded the house and took her away forcibly after pressing her mouth and thereafter ravished her one by one. Thereafter, when her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she has discounted the names of Narendra Maurya, Natthu Lal and Pappu Maurya and urged from the prosecution to punish the applicant Bandhu Ram Maurya and Kehri Maurya for the alleged act of committing rape upon her.

¶10

So far as the victim is concerned, she has passed intermediate examination and is a marrieed woman, got married on 23.10.2018 with Mr 'Y'. This shifting stand in the prosecution version from the F.I.R. to the statements of the victim, speaks volume about her conduct. Moreover, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has attributed the role of ravishing her one by one against the applicant and co-accused Kehri Maurya but surprisingly as per opinion of the doctor there was only fingering was done by all five named persons. Under the internal examination the hymen of the victim was found old, torn and heal and there was no fresh injury over her person. In the supplementary medico legal examination report dated 28.12.2018 the doctor has opined that no definite opinion can be given about sexual assault upon the victim.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts.

¶12

Taking into account the overall circumstances, the shifting stand of the victim and the tainted prosecution story, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the appellant, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Let the appellant- Bandhu Ram Maurya , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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:-

¶15

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶16

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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

¶17

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶20

(v) 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 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 29.9.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 25.8.2021 M. Kumar

Bandhu Ram Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandhu Ram Maurya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satto Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishwanath Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Arora Vs State of U.P.

Fakruddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Das Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others