This court allowed the criminal appeal seeking bail. Setting aside the bail rejection order of the Special Court, the court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail and rejected the State opposition.
Impugned bail rejection order set-aside; Appellant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.
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:132449
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 902 of 2023
Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ranjan Srivastava,Om Prakash Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Pradyumna Kumar Yadav, Udriv Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Vide order dated 28.04.2023 while granting interim bail to the appellant, three weeks' time was granted to the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 to file counter affidavit. Although the name of Sri Pradyumna Kumar Yadav and Sri Udriv Kumar Yadav, Advocates, have been printed from the side of opposite party no.2 but neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
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 22.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad in Bail Application No. 7022 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2021, under Sections 376, 313, 328, 506 IPC, Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Phaphamau, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is submitted that the no evidence with regard to transfer of money by the informant to the appellant has been collected by the investigating officer while charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant, therefore, the allegation of the informant that she had given Rs.85,000/- to the appellant is baseless. It is further submitted that as per medical examination report, the victim is aged 20 years and as per statement of Dr. Archana Singh, no finding was observed about the physical relations with the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that there is no evidence available on record which can indicate that the appellant forcefully established physical relations or caused miscarriage. 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 20.09.2022 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. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegations of establishing forceful physical relations and causing miscarriage but does not dispute that there is no evidence available on record to corroborate such circumstance.
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.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let appellant, Ashok Kumar Shukla , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail in a charge involving rape and dowry death under SC/ST Act.
Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application despite lack of corroborative evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Shukla
State Of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
