The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal regarding bail under the SC/ST Act. The court rejected arguments based on FIR delay and financial disputes, upholding bail rejection due to the gravity of rape charges and DNA corroboration.
Bail rejected as per impugned order; Trial directed to be concluded within one year.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138311
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7212 of 2019
Appellant :- Anil Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Singh,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Shailesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Azaz Ahmad
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
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 order dated 18.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli, in Bail Application No. 1585 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli.
As per first information report,the case of prosecution is that the appellant enticed the daughter of the informant and established physical relations forcefully and continued to do so. The appellant threatened the victim not to disclosed this fact to anyone and also used caste related words. After 8-9 months the daughter of the informant delivered a child and disclosed the act committed by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The date and time of the incident is not mentioned in the first information report. The FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay but the prosecution has failed to offer any explanation regarding delay. The victim is major and her age is 18 years. The appellant has been falsely implicated for the reason that opposite party no.2 had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from the appellant and when the appellant demanded his money, a false FIR has been lodged against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is ready to marry the victim. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The
appellant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. consistently corroborated that the appellant has committed rape with her, as a result of which, she became pregnant and delivered a child. The DNA report of the appellant has also been placed on record, in which the DNA of the appellant and the child of the victim are found to be the same. It is further submitted that before the trial Court, the victim stated that the appellant established forceful sexual relations with her.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the act and conduct of the appellant in the commission of crime, I do not find it fit case for bail.
Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed .
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the appellant, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the bail rejection order passed by the special judge.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of explanation by prosecution vitiates the FIR.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Gupta
The State Of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
The 3rd Respondent
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
