Appeal against rejection of regular bail under the SC/ST Act. High Court found the case unfit for bail grant as trial nears completion, dismissing the appeal without expressing opinion on merits.
Bail prayer not granted; appeal dismissed without expression of opinion on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134529
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4301 of 2024
Appellant :- Shivnandan Yadav @ Kamal Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Brij Napit Counsel for Respondent :- Deena Nath,G.A.,Satya Prakash
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Shivnandan Yadav @ Kamal Yadav- appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kaushambi, District Kaushambi has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant who is deaf and dumb has falsely implicated him in the above mentioned case and no such occurrence as alleged had taken place. He submits that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 2nd January, 2024, whereas the first information report has been lodged after a long delay on 4th February, 2024 and the same has not been explained. According to the learned counsel, the alleged occurrence took place in an open place, but the prosecution has relied upon the witnesses, who are closely related to the prosecutrix and their version is based upon the information
given by the prosecutrix herself and in the absence of any eye-witness, no credence can be attached to the prosecution case. Learned counsel has argued that after framing of charges, the material witness i.e. complainant has been examined as P.W.1, therefore, in this background, the appellant deserves the concession of regular bail, who is confined in custody since his arrest on 06.03.2024. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Special Court, Kaushambi is not based upon proper appreciation of the material on record and prays that the same be set aside and appellant be released on regular bail.
No one appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.
The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, who has argued that the occurrence took place in early hours on 2nd January, 2024 and taking advantage of foggy morning, the accused- appellant committed the alleged crime. He submits that the occurrence took place in the agricultural field and the statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the assistance of Special Educator, as the victim is deaf and dumb. Learned counsel refers to the testimony of P.W.1 to point out that the complainant has consistently blamed the appellant for the alleged occurrence and has also identified him in the Court. He has argued that the order passed by the Special Court is based on correct appreciation of prosecution evidence, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according
to the complainant, the appellant- accused used force to commit rape upon her and since, she is deaf and dumb, could not raise any alarm and later she had informed about this occurrence to her family members. Similar is her stand in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecution is in the process of adducing its evidence and only evidence of complainant has been recorded, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find to be fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the accused, as the trial may conclude in near future.
During the course of hearing, it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that in all there are only seven prosecution witnesses and out of those, one has already been examined.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal for regular bail should be dismissed.
Whether the High Court is fit to extend the concession of regular bail considering the pendency of trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivnandan Yadav @ Kamal Yadav
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
