Allowed

Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2023BAIL/21559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application concerned an applicant alleged of rape under IPC Sections 376, 504, and 506. The trial court summoned him; however, the applicant claimed false implication and noted contradictions in the victim's statement. The High Court, considering the Supreme Court's dicta on personal liberty and the length of incarceration, allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ajab Singh on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124285

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21559 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajab Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Jeevan Tripathi,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In this case, it has been alleged that present accused applicant was summoned to face trial under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC by the court of C.J.M. Jalaun at Orai, vide order dated 11.11.2020 in a complaint case which was lodged by the complainant stating therein that when the prosecutrix had gone to ease on 11.1.2019 at about 5:30 a.m. the present accused-applicant along with other person Devendra committed rape against her and on her shrieks, her sister-in-law (jethani) Pushpa came over there, the culprits fled away. It is further alleged in the complaint that earlier on 7.1.2019, the same incident was happened with Pushpa, the sister-in-law ( jethani ) of the complainant, which was complained of but no action was taken. The statement of the victim u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the witnesses Pushpa @ Gautam Devi as PW-1, Jitendra Kumar as PW-2 and Shailendra as PW-3 were recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the medical examination of the victim, summoning order was passed.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case on the basis of previous animosity. He has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that no independent witness has been adduced by the complainant in support of her complaint version. It is also submitted that in the medical examination of the victim, some minor injuries have been found, however, there is no evidence regarding the alleged rape committed to the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that complaint has been filed many days after the alleged incident. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record, at all, to support

¶10

the complaint version. The prosecutrix of the case is a major lady. Applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2023, having no criminal antecedent, and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that sufficient evidence against the applicant has been collected during course of investigation regarding commission of rape against the prosecutrix and before the trial court the prosecutrix has corroborated the prosecution version in her deposition.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶14

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶15

7. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶16

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶17

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to

¶18

the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶19

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶20

In this matter, as is evident from the record that prosecutrix is major. There are contradictions in her statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC. Applicant is in jail since 13.3.2023. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant Ajab Singh involved in Complaint No.474 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sirsakalar, District - Jalaun be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

(v). The applicant 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.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶29

Order Date :- 5.6.2023

¶30

m.a.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajab Singh 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

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Ramavtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others