Dismissed

Farman v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023CRLA/5313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court affirmed the Special Judge's order rejecting bail for the appellant charged with rape under Section 376 IPC. The bail appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to record victim and witness statements within three months.

What did the court decide?

The bail appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to record the statement of the victim and other witnesses of fact within three months.

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135181

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5313 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Farman Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

As per office report notice is served upon opposite party no.2 but none is present on behalf of him.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

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 15.03.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Muzaffarnagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 34 of 2021, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶9

The case of the prosecution is that the sister of the informant on 24.03.2021 at around 8.30 am went to ease herself in the field. The appellant was already present there, who caught the sister of the informant and committed rape with her. Witness Titu saw the incident.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that first information report of the incident has been lodged with the delay of 2 days and no explanation of such delay has been offered. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not mention the date of incident and also the fact that eye witness Titu was present there. It is submitted that in the medical examination no sign of rape was observed on the person of the prosecutrix and even in the supplementary report no indication of rape was observed. The statement of the eye witness Titu was recorded after 15 days of the incident and he is the friend of the informant, therefore, he is an interested witness. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the

¶11

provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2021 having no criminal history and none of the prosecution witnesses is produced so far. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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 argued that the prosecutrix is a deaf and dumb lady aged about 25 years. On the next day of incident when she felt unwell the matter was reported to the informant. It is also submitted that in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she consistently corroborated the fact that the appellant raped with her. Eye witness Titu has given statement to the Investigating Officer that he witnessed the incident.

¶13

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 15.03.2023 is affirmed.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

The criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to record the statement of victim and other witnesses of fact within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Mohit

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonam Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others