Allowed

Jaswant Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023CRLA/3845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against bail rejection orders for two appellants charged with gang rape. The Court held that appellants had made out a case for bail despite the severity of charges, set aside lower orders, and released them on personal and surety bonds with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellants upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to verification and specific conduct conditions.

Jaswant Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140388

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3845 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Jaswant Tomar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3495 of 2023

¶7

Appellant :- Abhay Pratap Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. informs that the notice on opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

¶10

Since both the criminal appeals arise out from the same case crime no. 299 of 2022, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

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 orders dated 09.02.2023 and 13.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautambudh Nagar in Bail Application Nos. 724 of 2023 and 1329 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 392, 411 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Phase-2 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar.

¶13

As per FIR, the case of prosecution is that on 24.07.2022 FIR of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix that on 21.07.2022 when she was returning home from her office at around 9-10 pm in the night, two unnamed persons came there, shut her mouth from

¶14

their hands and committed gang rape with her. They have taken away the mobile phone of the prosecutrix.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The appellants are not named in the first information report even in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she did not take the name of the appellants. In the medical examination report, no injury was seen on the person of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that after office hours from company, she met with one Pawan and when she was talking with Pawan at Greem Park, two persons came from her back, caught her and committed rape with her and thereafter Pawan ran away. The appellants have been arrested on 09.01.2023 and 13.02.2023 respectively and since then they are in jail. The confessional statements of the appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the alleged mobile is said to be recovered from the possession of appellant Jaswant Tomar. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no chance of the appellants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the mobile phone of the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant Jaswant Tomar. As per FSL report indicates that the prosecutrix was raped but could not dispute the appellants are not named in the FIR.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

¶19

Let appellants, Jaswant Tomar and Abhay Pratap , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶20

concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

(i) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶25

(v) The appellants 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.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Prajapati

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaswant Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Tomar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruvchandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bantu Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aniket Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another