Allowed

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024CRLA/3769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of regular bail in an SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act case involving rape and other IPC offences. Noting the completed investigation, trial yet to commence, and inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.04.2024 set aside; appellant released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114478

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3769 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Achint Ranjan Singh,Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Afzal,Shivangi Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, under Sections 376, 342, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., 1860 and Section 3(2)(5) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Linepaar, District Firozabad has been rejected.

¶7

The above F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of complainant who alleged that she is a married lady and resides at Nagla Vishnu Colony and is employed in Anganwadi. Ajay Singh a resident of the colony met her three years back and used to enter into pleasing conversation with her and had set-up physical relationships with her. He also prepared a video of this act and used to set-up relations with her as per his will. On 11.2.2024 when she was going for work, he forcibly stopped her and gave her beatings. On these broad allegations the above FIR was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 504 & 506, 493 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1)(dha) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the original version the ingredients to constitute the offence of rape are missing and therefore, no such offence is contained in the FIR, but during investigation the said offence along with offence punishable under section 342 IPC has been added. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to point out that the complainant has later on introduced the allegations of rape, and the version of the complainant herself is conflicting, which shows that the case of the prosecution hinges upon a weak nature of evidence. According to the learned counsel the investigation is complete as final report dated 24.3.2024 stands filed, but without considering the background of the case properly, the Special Court, Firozabad has refused the concession of regular bail to the appellant vide impugned order dated 02.04.2024. He prays that the impugned order be set-aside and the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant be allowed.

¶9

The prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant who argued that not only the call detail records of the parties have been found by the Investigating Officer to arrive at a conclusion that on the date of occurrence they were together, and apart from this, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant was subjected to rape by the accused on 28.1.2024. She has submitted that the accused had called the victim at his residence with a promise to get her work in his upcoming film.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the version of the complainant recorded at different stages contains variations, as the offence punishable under section 376 IPC has been added in the

¶11

FIR by deleting the offence punishable under section 493 IPC, and this shows that the Investigating Officer has altered the charges against the accused. Since the investigation in the case is complete and trial is yet to commence and allegations by complainant are yet to proved by prosecution, therefore, further detention of appellant behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose. The material witness in the case is either the complainant herself or the official witnesses and at this stage there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Thus, this Court finds that it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant. A reading of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 would show that the Special Court, Firozabad has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case properly while refusing to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶12

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellantAjay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh, be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶13

The appeal is allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Shiv

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Satya Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Pramod Kumar Ojha vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Haldar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Tushar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. and Another