Allowed

Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2023CRLA/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail in a gang rape and SC/ST Act case. The court set aside the lower court's order, citing inadequate consideration of the defence case and constitutional right to speedy trial amid jail overcrowding, and granted bail subject to surrender conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order of rejection of bail is set aside; the appellant is enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100878

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 330 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Shanker Mishra,A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 no one has turned up to oppose this appeal.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shahjahanpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 492 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 504, 506 IPC and Section3(2)(V) and 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur.

¶10

There is allegation against the applicant that he had committed offence of gang rape against the victim belonging to schedule caste on false promise of marriage.There is also allegation of extending threats to the victim.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim is aged about 24 years. As per judgement of the Apex court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 LawSuit (SC)973 and Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) SLP(Crl.) No.8586 of 2017, it has been held that physical relation-ship on false promise of marriage does not amounts to rape. The appellant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2022. In case, the appellant is released on

¶12

bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 02.12.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being undertrial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let appellant, Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

(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 the trial court.

¶21

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶22

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Rajpoot @ Chhotu 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

Nawase Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Swadesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gabbar Sharma @ Deepu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another