Appellant appealed against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court found insufficient pre-summoning evidence and unsupported victim statements. Balancing risk against lack of evidence, bail was granted subject to conditions.
Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
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:123699
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4950 of 2024
Appellant :- Rais Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Madhvendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice upon second respondent, none appears on her behalf.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Rais to set aside the impugned order dated 20.2.2024, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi has rejected the bail application No. 374 of 2024 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 11.6.2022 was lodged by mother of the victim against the appellant and other co-accused Sameer @ Tanki stating that the appellant and other co-accused enticed away her two daughters aged about 16 years and 15 years to marry forcibly.
After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.6.2022. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.6.2022. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant and other co-accused person on 3.8.2022. The appellant was arrested on 19.6.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she had gone
from the house on her own free and sweet will and she wanted to solemnize marriage with the appellant.
It is further submitted that the prosecution had not collected any date of birth certificate of the victim. As per ossification test, the victim was 17 years old at the time of the test.
It is further submitted that there is no pre-summoning evidence with regard to compulsion of marriage. It is further submitted that co-accused Sameer @ Tanki has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5877 of 2022 vide order dated 22.12.2022.
The appellant has criminal history of five other cases, which has been duly explained in Para Nos. 4 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 19.6.2022.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that;
(a) There is no pre-summoning evidence with regard to offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, I.P.C.;
(b) The victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statements.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the
ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 20.2.2024 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Rais be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024 T. Sinha
Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail pending trial despite criminal antecedents.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayReferred¶21
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public ProsecutorReferred¶21
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Referred¶21
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Referred¶21
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Referred¶21
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rais
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
