Allowed

Sanjay Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024/2503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a bail rejection order arising from a rape allegation, the Allahabad High Court Special Bench observed medical report inconsistencies, including an intact hymen and lack of injuries, finding material error in the lower court's decision and setting aside the bail rejection to gran

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant granted release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68313

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2503 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sanjay Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashansa Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

The State with its counter affidavit has enclosed a communication sent by the Station House Officer, Ahirauli, Ambedkar Nagar with regard to the service on respondent no.2, however, despite service of notice, she is not represented by any counsel

¶7

Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh holding brief of Ms. Prashansa Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant/ Sanjay Mishra for grant of bail and to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1276 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2024, under Sections 376(D), 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1) Da, Dha of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing this appeal submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the victim herself on 22.05.2024 at 10:10am pertaining to the incident, which had occurred on the same day at about 04:00am. alleging that the appellant and co-accused Satyendra Chamar have committed rape on her when she had gone out of the house to ease out and she has stated her age to be of more than 18 years.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has

¶12

corroborated the allegation of rape, but there are material contradictions and inherent weaknesses in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day i.e. on 22.05.2024 at 06:05pm. and even no scratch and bruise has been found on her person while allegations are of commission of rape against two accused persons.

¶13

It is also submitted that the Doctor has specifically recorded in the medical report that there is no sign of recent use of force and even the hymen of the prosecutrix has been found intact and thus allegation of commission of rape by two persons apparently appears to be false and concocted. In fact the appellant has been dragged into this case on the basis of prior village enmity. The prosecutrix at the relevant day and time was major.

¶14

It is also submitted that appellant is in jail in this case since 22.05.2024 and he is not having any criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and 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 the appellant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the appellant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

Considering the facts that the prosecutrix has been medically examined on the same day, whereon the allegation of rape has been levelled and no injury of any kind has been found on her person, anywhere and her hymen has also been found intact while allegations are of commission of rape by two adult persons and also keeping in view the fact that charge-sheet in this case has already been filed and appellant is in jail in this case since 22.05.2024 without any previous criminal history, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has materially erred in passing the impugned order and same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the court below is set-aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed . Pending application(s) stand disposed of.

¶17

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant- Sanjay

¶18

Mishra 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 appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Anupam S/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rustam Siddiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 2 Others

Prachi Thru. Husband Divyansh Verma Vs state of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and others

Samiya Vs Sri Gulam Ahmad

Xxxx victim of Case Crime No. 299 of 2020 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow and 2 Others

Rahul Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another