Allowed

Rohit Patel v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/1742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail. Finding the trial court failed to consider material contradictions and the absence of a rape allegation in the FIR, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.10.2021 set aside; Appellant Rohit Patel released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4578

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1742 of 2021 Appellant :- Rohit Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ghanshyam Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.2000/2021 arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2021 under Sections 376, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sangramgarh, DistrictPratapgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case as victim and her family members are inimical with the appellant and only with the intention to victimize him and to get the financial aid from the government on the basis of incorrect fact, F.I.R. of case in question was lodged and charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer without considering the major contradictions in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the evidences provided by the police were also not considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. He further submitted that as per the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 05.06.2021 at about 9:30 PM, appellant entered into the house of the victim and gave beatings and abused her and also torn her clothes, when she raised alarm then the neighbors reached at the spot then the appellant went away, thereafter, complaint was made to the police control room at 112 and the police also reached at the spot. It is further submitted that life threat was also given by the appellant but no any F.I.R. was lodged on the said date and the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.06.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and she developed a case that prior to the aforesaid incident on 09.05.2021 in the night at 9:30

¶9

when she went to ease herself in the nearby agricultural field, she was going back then the appellant came and dragged her in a filed and on gun point, he committed rape with her and on her cry, life threat was given. He further submitted that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., no incident related to 09.05.2021 was explained. He further submitted that torn clothes of the victim was also not taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and the charge sheet was submitted. He further submitted that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 04.08.2021 and all of the witnesses of facts have been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of evidences. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private respondent opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but they are unable to explain the fact as to why the incident dated 09.05.2021 has not been explained in the F.I.R. and this fact was only mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the F.I.R. They also conceded the fact that there is no allegation that on 05.06.2021, any rape was committed by the appellant and the report of officials by police control room was also not taken into consideration.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged by the victim but no any allegation of rape is mentioned in the F.I.R., as it is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that complaint was made to the police control room about the incident related to outraging the modesty of the victim, as the torn clothes were not taken into custody by the Investigating Officer, as all the witnesses of facts have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Rohit Patel involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Patel v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Patel v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another