Special Judicial Appeal filed for quashing the bail rejection order of an accused in a case involving abduction and molestation under SC/ST Act. The High Court set aside the rejection and granted bail.
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to specific conditions.
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:132782
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1628 of 2023
Appellant :- Pappu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhari,Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pushkar
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 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 appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh in Bail Application No.600 of 2023 (Pappu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2022, under Sections 302, 147, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gangiri, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted that appellant was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, the informant moved an application before the Investigation Officer in which name of other four persons including appellant was said to have been involved in the incident. It has also been submitted that no incriminating article either on the pointing out or from possession of the appellant has been recovered. No motive or specific role has been assigned to the appellant. It has been further submitted that co-accused, Ashok who was also not named in the F.I.R. and was later named by the informant, has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2214 of 2023 and role of the appellant is identical, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 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 has no previous criminal history. The appellant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2022 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. and learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
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 an and in the counter affidavit he has asserted that appellant indulged in the profession of exorcism and the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has consistently corroborated the version of F.I.R. and had made specific allegation that appellant committed rape upon her on the pretext of treatment of her husband. d illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant, namely, Pappu 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 Atul
Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for bail despite the repressed nature of the offence under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant who was falsely implicated.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
