Gulab Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3348 of 2024 Appellant :- Gulab Chandra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶2

Counsel for Appellant :- Vaibhav Srivastava,Suresh Chandra Srivastava 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. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 2, although, as per instructions of learned AGA, notices have been served upon respondent no. 2.

¶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 24.09.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2175/2024 in case crime No. 280/2024, under Sections 376D/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur.

¶6

As per prosecution case, on 17.6.2024 at 8 p.m., while the complainant was alone in her house, Lal Ji Jaiswal with his friend Gulab Chandra Maurya came and called her and forcibly sat her on two wheeler motorcycle and took her to forest where Raman Verma and Anoop Prajapati were already present. Lal Ji Jaiswal, Gulab Chandra Maurya and Raman Verma committed rape with her by and by and Anoop Prajapati was looking so that no one may come. These people after committing bad work abused in the name of caste and asked that in case she lodge any complaint, she will be killed. The F.I.R. to this effect was lodged on 12.7.2024 at Police Staten Gosainganj, District Sultanpur against the applicant and three others at 17.20 hrs.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is repetition of the FIR, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has made improvement. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence or any other material in support of the prosecution case. The FIR has been lodged after 25 days without any explanation. The victim is a married lady aged about 37 years. The applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated. The applicant-appellant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant-appellant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2024.

¶8

It has been further submitted that as per the prosecution case itself, the applicant-appellant has not committed rape. His role is of only guarding the accused persons while they were committing the offence 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., lack of corroborative evidence; delay in lodging the FIR, so also period of incarceration gone into by the appellant-applicant, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Bail application No. 1832/2024 in case crime No. 280/2024, under Sections 376D/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur is set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant-applicant/ Gulab Chandra Maurya 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 R.C.

¶20

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

Gulab Chandra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Chandra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mulla Mukarram @ Mukarramin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Om Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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.