This court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. It held that the appellant made out a case for bail, setting aside the lower court's order that rejected the bail application in a rape-related case.
Criminal appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on furnishing bond and sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132201
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1403 of 2023 Appellant :- Ajay Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sheshmani Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria in Bail Application No. 63 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Salempur, District Deoria.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case for the reason that the mother of the appellant was Gram Pradhan and she was contesting party in the election of member of Zila Panchayat, therefore, the appellant has been implicated falsely. It is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she did not make any allegation against the appellant regarding commission of rape with her. The victim is a consenting party. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated her age to be 20 years. It is further submitted that the victim refused to undergo for medical examination, therefore, there is no evidence available on record which can corroborate the version of the prosecutirx that the appellant established physical relations with her forcefully. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation of rape against the appellant but it is not disputed that she refused to undergo for medical examination and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the appellant about physical assault.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let appellant, Ajay Yadav , involved in the above Case 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.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order passes with legal infirmity and illegality.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Yadav
State of U.P.
Another
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
