Allowed

Daddan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023/1853/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order rejecting bail, holding that the Special Judge failed to appreciate contradictions in the prosecutrix statements, the lack of DNA report, and the absence of injuries in the medical examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.07.2022 setting aside; appellant enlarged on bail with personal bond, sureties, cooperation, and expedited trial within one year.

Daddan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46760

¶3

Court No. - 15

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1853 of 2022 Appellant :- Daddan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Haridwar Singh (H.D.Singh ),Ajeet Kumar Mishra,Gaurav Singh,Gyan Sagar Gupta,Sudhakar Mishra,Tajdar Ahmad,Yaduvansh Mani Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶7

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶8

Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties and are on the record.

¶9

Heard Shri Anil K. Tripathi, Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaurav Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Bhaskar Mal, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire record.

¶10

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant-Daddan Singh, against the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2026 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 354, 452, 341 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), (s) & 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bazar Shukul, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity and village partybandi. No such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. The entire prosecution story as alleged has been made only with intention to defame the image of appellant and his family members in the society.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix who has lodged the present F.I.R. against the appellant

¶13

¶14

and other accused persons, is associated with one Indresh Singh, from whom there is enmity of appellant regarding some property. In this regard the appellant has also lodged an F.I.R. earlier against Indresh Singh on 18.05.2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.; and to take revenge of that case Indresh Singh put forward the present prosecutrix against the appellant who lodged the present F.I.R with false allegations.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits in the F.I.R. it has been stated by the prosecutrix that appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix on 31.05.2022 at 12:00 o'clock in the night and committed her rape after threatening her. When this incident was informed to the husband of the prosecutrix and when he complained the appellant then the appellant along with other persons beaten to the prosecutrix as well as her husband.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that prosecutrix further states in the F.I.R. that F.I.R. is being lodged with the delay as her husband was not present in the house at the time of incident and when her husband came back from his job she is lodging the F.I.R. It has been argued that this story is also false, because as per the version of F.I.R. the incident took place on 31.05.2022 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 23.06.2022 after a great delay without any proper and plausible explanation, which shows that the present F.I.R. has been lodged after due consultation and deliberation as a counter blast of the F.I.R. which was lodged by the appellant against Indresh Singh with whom prosecutrix is associated.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. there are material contradictions, as in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she was sleeping outside the house along with her daughter on the date of incident, when at about 12:00 o'clock she entered into the room to switch on the fan of the room the appellant entered there and committed her rape and when she made noise her minor daughter came there who after dragging her and after pushing the appellant closed the door from outside and after hearing the noise wife of appellant came at the same time, which also not appears to be a probable story. The daughter of prosecutrix has repeated the

¶18

¶19

same version as of her mother as she is interested witness of the alleged incident.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that allegation of rape as alleged by the prosecutrix got demolished after perusal of her medical report, wherein the concerned doctor found no injury on her private parts, inflammable redness swelling, bleeding present at the of examination. The age of the prosecutrix is around 35 years. She was pregnant but it cannot be said that pregnancy was due to the said incident as she is a married lady and her husband used to come to his house from the place of his working. There is no D.N.A. report to ascertain the correct parentage of the fetus developing in the womb of the prosecutrix.

¶21

It has further been argued that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case with malicious intention and he may be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically and the present appeal may be allowed.

¶22

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the appellant has no previous criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been argued that the appellant is in jail since 25.06.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶23

Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that appellant is involved in heinous crime, therefore, his prayer for bail be rejected.

¶24

Shri Bhaskar Mal, the learned A.G.A. for the State is in agreement with the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶25

¶26

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the present F.I.R. has been lodged with a great delay of 23 days after due consultation and deliberation as a counter blast of the F.I.R. which was lodged by the appellant against Indresh Singh with whom prosecutrix is associated; further there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. with the version of F.I.R., there appears further force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that allegation of rape as alleged by the prosecutrix got demolished after perusal of her medical report, wherein the concerned doctor found no injury on her private parts, inflammable redness swelling, bleeding were present at the of examination, and she was pregnant but it cannot be said that pregnancy was due to the said incident as she is a married lady and her husband used to come to his house from the place of his working; further there appears also force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no D.N.A. report to ascertain the correct parentage of the fetus developing in the womb of the prosecutrix; and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record and the impugned order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2026 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 354, 452, 341 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), (s) & 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bazar Shukul, District Amethi is hereby reversed and set aside .

¶28

¶29

Let the appellant, Daddan Singh, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 354, 452, 341 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), (s) & 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bazar Shukul, District Amethi with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶31

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

¶32

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

¶33

(b) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and

¶34

(c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

¶36

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶37

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶38

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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

¶40

¶41

treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶42

The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, within a period of one year from today, by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.

¶43

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶44

Mustaqeem

¶45

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Daddan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daddan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. 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

Mohd. Anees Alias Anil Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and and Another

Aslam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Mantu Verma Alias Vivek Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Jaheer and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Goldie @ Dinesh Lal Shukla @ Dinesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Mahendra Rajpoot and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another