Subash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106653

Reserved On:- 11.05.2023 Delivered On:- 16.05.2023

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 393 of 2023 Appellant :- Subash Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Kurunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.

¶7

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 17.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections- 452, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sikriganj, District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that the informant belongs to schedule caste. On 25.09.2022 at about 12:30 in the night, the appellant came to her house and started misbehaving with her. He entered in her house and committed the offence of rape. She came out and closed the door from outside and raised alarm. Police was called on no. 112 and the information was given to the police.

¶9

2

¶10

Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of false implication of the appellant. The victim is a married woman having children. She is aged about 48 years and was having consensual relationship with the appellant. She had implicated the appellant only to protect herself from her husband who had come to know about her affair with the appellant.

¶11

Counsel for the appellant also submits that in the medical examination report of the victim, no sign of rape was found rather the injuries were found on the person of the appellant. He has submitted that on the fateful night the victim called the appellant in the mid night but since the neighbours saw him and she had raised alarm, the appellant was beaten by the neighbour as clear from his injury report.

¶12

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2005 wherein the Apex Court has held that when evidence of the prosecuterix read as a whole suffers from discrepancies and does not inspires confidence and the incident alleged appears to be improbable accused deserves acquittal. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 25.09.2022. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on 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

3

¶15

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 facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 17.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶16

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 under-trial 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.

¶17

Let appellant, Subash Yadav , 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:

¶18

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

4

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 sufficient 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

Order Date :- 16.05.2023

¶30

Rohit

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Yadav @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish @ Leelu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another