Allowed

Ravindra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023CRLA/6712/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting the appellant's bail plea. Relying on Article 21 and expert overcrowding in jails, the Court enlarged the appellant on bail with strict personal conditions without adjudicating the merits of the rape and assault charges.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and refraining from legal misconduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145751

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6712 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ravindra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 15.05.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hathras has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 63 of 2023, under Sections 354, 354D, 376D, 427, 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.

¶9

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2023 accused Mukul along with one other person chased the prosecutrix and entered in her house and committed rape upon her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that appellant is not named in the FIR. The name of the appellant was disclosed by the proseucutrix during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the allegation levelled against appellant is only of threatening to the prosecutrix. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix alleged that on 12.01.2023 appellant along with co-accused Mukul committed rape with her while no FIR has been lodged with regard to the incident dated 12.01.2023. It is submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that when she returned from her in-laws house on 30.03.2023 since her marriage was solemnized on 16.01.2023, appellant again committed rape with her. It is submitted that with regard to the incident which is

¶11

mentioned in the FIR i.e. 10.03.2023 no averment is made in her statement. As per medical examination, no adverse finding of rape was observed. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2023 having no criminal history. 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 submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary.

¶13

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 15.5.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; 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.

¶15

Let appellant, Ravindra 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:

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 Mohit

¶27

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

Ravindra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Mobeen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Latura @ Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another