Allowed

Mohd. Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024/3119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge rejected bail in a rape case under SC/ST Act and IPC. Appellant challenged rejection on grounds of consent allegations and medical report deficits. High Court allowed bail, setting aside lower court order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; bail order dated 12.10.2023 set aside; appellant released on personal bond with two sureties.

Mohd. Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52391

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3119 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mohd. Shakeel Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Anurag Singh,Archana Rawat,Rahul Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

1. Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶8

2. Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press the bail application.

¶9

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) SC/ST Act has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2023, whereby the bail application of the applicant no.4331 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.0896 of 2023 under Sections 376-D IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki has been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POSCO Act, Court No.44 Barabanki.

¶11

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged by the victim herself in which she stated that she has been raped by her father for the last three years and she used to leave the house frequently and got in contact with co-accused Rakesh, who also used to establish physical relation with her. She further stated that the applicant, who was driver also used to rape against her.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the same fact has been narrated by her. It has been submitted that at the most it is a case of consent and she is major and the medical report is not supporting the prosecution case. It has been further

¶13

submitted that statements of Harish Bajpai, Maya Devi and Pooja have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who have stated that father of the prosecutrix used to make her captive in the house and also used to commit rape against her wishes. He has also submitted that the applicant is neighbor and he has been falsely implicated for the reason that there are money transaction between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 11.08.2023.

¶14

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case of rape as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that it is a case of consent; the argument that the prosecutrix has levelled allegation of rape against her father also and the argument that the medical examination does not support the prosecution case, therefore, I am of the opinion that applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

9. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POSCO Act, Court No.44 Barabanki arising out of Case Crime No.0896 of 2023 under Sections 376-D IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶17

10. Let applicant, namely, Mohd. Shakeel , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶24

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 31.7.2024 dk/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

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

Smt Rani Devi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Sanjai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ravi Prakash Awasthi @ Ravi Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manish Kumar Verma @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faiz Alam @ Billu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Ankit Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko