Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53134

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2317 of 2023

Appellant :- Sajjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bisunbablu Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Along with the counter affidavit the State has enclosed a written information given to the informant-opposite party no. 2 pertaining to the pendency of the instant proceedings before this court, however, despite the personal service, the opposite party no. 2 is not represented before this court.

¶9

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant- Sajjan for grant of bail and for setting aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.2485 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.0169 of 2023, under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. The FIR of the instant case has been lodged with false and concocted facts. It is further submitted that though in the FIR which has been lodged by husband of the prosecutrix allegedly on the information given by the victim and sister-in-law ( Bhabhi ) of the informant would disclose the commission of sexual assault by the appellant, however, if the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC is taken on its face, it will emerge that the victim was a consenting party.

¶11

Elaborating further, it is submitted that in both her statements the victim has stated to have been dragged in brought-day-light in forest ( Jungle ) and sexually assaulted. She has further stated that they (victim and the appellant) were seen by her sister-in-law ( Jethani ) as the house of her sister-in-law ( Jethani ) is situated near the place of

¶12

occurrence and she ( Jethani ) had seen them from the roof of her house and it is only on account of saving herself, the victim appears to have made complaint of sexual assault.

¶13

It is vehemently submitted that few scratches are shown to have been sustained by the prosecutrix on her face, however, it has not been noticed that these were fresh or old and appears to have been noticed for the purpose of identity of the prosecutrix and no injury of any kind or any abnormality has been noticed in or around her private part. She is a married lady and in medical examination report her age has been shown to be 33 years.

¶14

It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 09.06.2023. Criminal history of one case has been explained in para-16 of the rejoinder affidavit and now the appellant has been released on bail in that case (during the deliberations certified copy of the bail order has been given and the same is taken on record). There is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that in the DNA report of the victim male chromosome has been noticed in the vaginal slide and swabs of the victim and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that noticing of male chromosome in the vaginal slide and swabs of the victim may not be of any consequence as the victim is a married lady and it is natural to have found male chromosome on her person, however, the chromosome has not been found of the appellant.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be an admitted situation that the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time was major and married to the informant. In her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she is stated to been have seen by sister-in-law ( Bhabhi ) of the victim. It is submitted that she in order to save herself has levelled allegations of sexual assault while it was not possible to drag the prosecutrix in forest ( Jungle ) during day time in a village, especially from the shop of the appellant. Criminal history of one case has been explained and also keeping in view the period of detention of the appellant in prison in the present case since 09.06.2023, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside. Pending applications(s) shall stand disposed of.

¶18

Let the appellant- Sajjan involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 MVS/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sajjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phoolchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Devaki Nandan Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Another

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko