Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024CRLA/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in a rape and SC/ST Act case arising from a broken promise of marriage. The court found the victim's FIR and Section 161 statement contradictory and the clinical report name mismatched, held the trial court erred, set aside the impugned order and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions on attendance and non-adjournment.

Rehan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11884

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2024 Appellant :- Rehan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant 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 22.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.3958 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.964/2023 under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Unnao.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case as the victim and the appellant were in relationship. He further submitted that the victim was a major lady at the time of alleged incident and in the F.I.R., she stated that she was in relation with the appellant since she was aged about 15 years but there is no evidence related to the relation of victim with the appellant since the victim was 15 years old. He further submits that in the counter affidavit, clinical pathological report of victim is annexed, in which, her name is mentioned as Ms. Sadhna which does not match with the same of the victim.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the F.I.R., victim was being abused by the appellant since last six years on the pretext of marriage and on 08.11.2023 at about 12:00 Noon, when the victim requested the appellant for solemnizing marriage, then he started abusing her, passed some caustic words and refused to marry her, thereafter, statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she developed a new case and stated that on 08.11.2023, when she met with the appellant then he committed rape with her, thereafter, refused to marry her by passing some abusive words then she came back and on 18.11.2023, her pregnancy test was found positive then she made a call to the appellant but the appellant again refused to solemnize marriage and told her to

¶9

take some medicine and terminate the alleged pregnancy, thereafter, the victim administered some medicine and her menstrual cycle was again started.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is an admitted case that the victim was in friendship with the appellant but she started blackmailing him when the appellant denied to fulfill her desire, then on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. of case in question was lodged. He further submits that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 24.11.2023. He further submits that the trial court failed to consider the all these facts and passed impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant/victim oppose the prayer of appellant and submit that the victim has supported the prosecution version but they are unable to explain, as to how, the name of victim does not match with the name mentioned in the clinical pathological report annexed with the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, contents of F.I.R., statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as other relevant documents; it is evident from the record that there is no evidence that victim was in relationship with the appellant since the age of 15 years, as name of victim does not match with the name mentioned in the clinical pathological report, as statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to the contents of F.I.R. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that 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.

¶13

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 22.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Rehan 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:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 V. Sinha

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Harinath Alias Dhanai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Nakul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

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