In this criminal appeal, the High Court dismissed Bharat Yadav's prayer to set aside a bail rejection order. The High Court held that the victim's statements corroborated the FIR, the appellant actively participated in the crime, and there was no fit case for bail.
Criminal appeal dismissed; directed to record victim's statement within four months.
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:191657
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2272 of 2023
Appellant :- Bharat Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Ajeet Singh,Mohd. Khalil,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dipendra Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, 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 09.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Case Crime No. 464 of 2022, under Sections 376, 328, 120B I.P.C., Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Section 66-E Indian Technology Act, Police Station Medical, District Meerut.
The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R is that victim was the member of the gym in which the appellant was working as a trainer. On 12.10.2022, during work out the victim felt uneasy inside the gym the appellant came to her and took her in near by hotel. Since the victim always considered the appellant as of her uncle so she believed him and accompanied with the appellant where Rajiv-brother of the appellant was already present. In the hotel the victim was offered with cold drink and pastry and after consuming it she became unconscious, appellant committed rape on her in the presence of his brother. The appellant informed the victim that he has made video of the victim and threatened her, addressed her with caste related words. On 01.11.2022, the appellant again called the daughter of the informant but she refuse to go there. When the informant enquired about the incident, the entire incident was narrated to informant. When contacted the appellant said that he was in love with the victim and he was ready to marry her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that age of the victim is 24 years, therefore, she was a
consenting party. It is also submitted that first information report of this incident has been lodged after a delay of one month and no explanation was offered. It is further submitted that victim was having cordial relations with the appellant and so she visited twice to hotel on 20.09.2022 and 02.10.2022 and the relevant entry of the register of the hotel is filed through rejoinder affidavit. The victim concealed this fact during her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there are watsapp chats between the victim and appellant which indicates that they were having good relations amongst them. It is further submitted that so far as allegation of making video and making it viral is concerned a pen drive was handed over to the Investigating Officer but the substance of pen drive is not disclosed in the C.D. Video, which is alleged to have forwarded or made viral to other persons by the appellant have given their statement that they have deleted that video. Therefore, there is no video in existence since it was never made by the appellant. Appellant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022 having no criminal history 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 the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that admittedly the age of the appellant is more that 50 years as mentioned in the F.I.R, he is a married person having children, therefore, there was no occasion for the victim to have intimate relation with him. The victim in her statement recorded under 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has consistently corroborated the version of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that after the incident of 12.10.2022, the appellant called the victim on 01.11.2022 and thereafter on 02.11.2022 and when she refused to come the appellant made her video viral. Witnesses Abhay, Mohan, Ompal, Krishna Avtar as well as owner of the gym Vishal Sharma has stated in their statements that after watching the video they deleted the same.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and since the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has consistently corroborated the version of the F.I.R. and keeping in view the active participation of the appellant in the commission of crime, I do not find it fit case for bail.
Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to record the statements of the victim within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023 PS
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against the bail rejection order deserves to be allowed.
Whether the trial court erroneously recorded the facts to deny bail to the appellant.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Bharat Yadav
State Of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
