Allowed

Chheda Lal @ Chheda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024CRLA/2970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail for an accused in a gang rape case involving a Scheduled Caste victim. The court noted contradictions between the victim's police and magistrate statements, delay in FIR and medical examination, and the appellant's age, disability and clean record. It allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.08.2024 rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions on conduct, attendance and non-interference.

Chheda Lal @ Chheda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82678

¶2

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2970 of 2024 Appellant :- Chheda Lal @ Chheda Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pravin Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2169/2024, case crime No. 300/2024, under Sections 376D/328/506 I.P.C., Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli.

¶6

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the daughter of the complainant aged about 21 years belongs to Scheduled Caste, who was residing at the house of her grandfather Shri Ram Prasad. On 09/05/2024 at about 3:00 PM in the day, the appellant, who is uncle in relation of the prosecutrix, took away her some distance in auto rickshaw under the pretext of walk and give her food and on the way. One Chandra (co-accused) also met who also sat in the auto (e-rickshaw) and took the prosecutrix outside the village and gave her cold drink mixed with intoxicants and took her to a deserted place where coaccused Dasiram Yadav and Sujit Kumar Yadav were already present. The daughter of the complainant was accompanied by (1) Chheda, (2) Chandra, (3) Dasiram Yadav, (4) Sujit Kumar Yadav and they committed rape with her daughter and when the prosecutrix cried and screamed, the accused persons threatened to kill her and said that if she screamed or told anyone, they would kill her. When complainant brought her daughter at home and inquired from her, then her daughter told her about the

¶7

incident and also told the names of the accused.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the applicant-appellant has no criminal antecedents. He is 60 years old and is 75 percent handicapped. The victim is major. The applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated. In the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has made allegation against four accused persons including the applicant-appellant, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made improvement and has not made allegation of rape against the applicant-appellant, rather, only this much has been stated that the applicant-appellant administered her liquor.

¶9

It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellantapplicant that there is contradiction in the statements of the victim. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence. There is no corroborative material to attract section 376-D and 328 IPC.

¶10

It is further submitted that applicant-appellant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2024 without having any criminal history. There is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as delay in lodging the FIR and in conducting medical examination, coupled with the fact that the applicant-appellant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2024 without having any criminal history, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the

¶13

material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2169/2024, case crime No. 300/2024, under Sections 376D/328/506 I.P.C., Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli is set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant-applicant/ Chheda Lal @ Chheda involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(vi) 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-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.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.12.2024/R.C.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chheda Lal @ Chheda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chheda Lal @ Chheda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko.

Sanjay Singh @ Munna Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shailesh Gupta Shooter Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dayaram Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.