The Single Judge dismissed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court found the victim's evidence supported by medical reports and independent witnesses insufficiently flawed to grant bail without recording the victim's testimony.
The appeal against the bail rejection order is dismissed, and the original order stands upheld.
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.
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3346 of 2022
Appellant :- Amit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushma Devi
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Shri Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sushma Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has filed bail order relating to co-accused Vinod Kumar Singh alias Billu passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 5559 of 2022. It is taken on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 553 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 349 of 2021,under Sections 376D/5, 450, 328, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Bisanda, District Banda.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 09.12.2021 at 23:59 hours was lodged against three named persons, namely, Amit, Parveen and Sanjay Kahar, under Sections 376-D, 450, 328, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act by the victim, aged about 36 years, stating that on 08.12.2021 at 11:30 a.m. when she was going to harvest her paddy crop, on the way at Divya Hotel, the above named
accused persons forcibly caught hold her and intoxicated some adulterated substance forcibly, by which she became unconscious and they committed rape on her. At about 7:00 p.m., co-accused Praveen called the husband of the victim and asked him to take her back and sent the victim to the house by a tempo and threatened with dire consequences and committed mar-peet with her.
After lodging of the first information report, the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded on 10.12.2021. Medical examination was also conducted on 10.12.2021. As per medical report, four abrasion, two abraded contusions and one abrasion and contusion were found on the right and left knee joint of the victim. Statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had been recorded on 15.12.2021. Second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.02.2022. After recording the statements of the other other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet had been submitted against the appellant and three named persons on 05.02.2022.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the victim's husband had taken advance money from the appellant in lieu of working on his filed but neither he worked nor returned the advanced money, instead he lodged a false FIR against the appellant. It is submitted that statement of workers or employees of Divya Hotel has not been recorded. It is stated that in the FIR it has been mentioned that Praveen called the victim's husband asking him to carry the victim, whereas in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that an employee of Divya Hotel (Dhaba) called her husband. It is also submitted that in the medical examination report there is no evidence of rape having been committed on her.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer for bail stating that the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her family members, namely, her mother Smt. Munni, husband Pooranlal and her son Dharmendra in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that the independent witnesses, namely, Rajesh, Kallu and Jagdish have also stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they have seen the victim lying unconscious at the Dhaba and was being carried by her mother and son. It is also submitted that in the injury report of the victim there are three abrasions on her knee joints which shows that the appellant has committed the offence.
Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the statements of independent witnesses, namely, Rajesh, Kallu and Jagdish, the three abrasions on the knee joints of the victim, the fact that victim's evidence before the Court has not yet been recorded, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in a case involving rape under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the discrepancies in prosecution evidence warrant the setting aside of the lower court's bail rejection order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit
State of U.P.
Surendra Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
