Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024CRLA/2125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court found material illegality in the trial court's order due to the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents, absence of his name in the prosecutrix's initial statements, and irregular identification procedures, and consequently enlarged him on bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount; order of 26.06.2024 set aside.

Vimal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54327

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2125 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 26.06.2024, passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Bahraich in Bail Application No. 1108/12A/2024, (Vimal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 0037of 2024, under Sections 376. 323. 506 IPC & Section 3 (1) (DA, DHA), 3(2) (5) & 3(2) (5A) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Visheshwarganj, District Bahraich, whereby the bail application of the appellant/applicant has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case of false implication and on the basis of village enmity the allegation of commission of rape has been levelled against the applicant.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on 3.2.2024 and 7.2.2024 the victim has not taken the name of the applicant and only stated that she was subjected to rape by an unknown boy who is a resident of the same village.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is only one witness in the name of Meera Devi who has claimed to have seen the victim and the applicant together and also that they were quarreling with each other and their body language was showing that sexual assault has been committed by the applicant.

¶12

Highlighting above, it is vehemently submitted that when on

¶13

2.2.2024 at about 5.00 P.M. the applicant had been identified by Meera Devi and was also named in the FIR there were no logic of his identification in the Police Station premises, as has been shown by the Investigating Officer and thus, the manner in which the identity of the applicant has been established may not be believed by any prudent person.

¶14

It is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement has stated physical assault by the boy who has committed rape, however, this part of story has also been belied by the fact that the prosecutrix was subjected to medial examination and no injury or any abnormality has been noticed on her person and it has been specifically recorded that no sign of use of force is present. Thus, there is no corroboration of the medical evidence with the oral allegation. The applicant is in jail in this case since 03.04.2024 and he is not having any criminal antecedent and there is no apprehension that the accused-appellant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that he is accused of an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Considering the fact that the prosecutrix is aged about 19 years, she is a married lady and in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.PC. has not taken the name of the applicant and it has been submitted with considerable force that identity of the applicant has been established in the manner not known to the procedure established by the law and also the fact that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he is in jail in this case since 03.04.2024, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶17

Thus, having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court material illegality has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the prayer of bail of the appellant.

¶18

In result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated 26.06.2024 is hereby set-aside .

¶19

Let appellant- Vimal be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of

¶21

witnesses and shall not commit any offence.

¶22

(ii) The appellant 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.

¶23

(iii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶24

(iv) 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 appellant 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.

¶25

(v) The appellant 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 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.

¶26

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faizan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

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

Veerpal Yadav (According to the Prosecution Veerpal) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Meraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Smt. Nankai and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.