This High Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted regular bail to the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C, setting aside the lower court's refusal, citing incomplete proof and investigation conclusion.
The impugned bail rejection order was set aside; the appellant was released on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds.
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:139654
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6308 of 2024
Appellant :- Saifi Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Saifi Yadav- 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 15.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 48 of 2024 (Saifi Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), under Sections 354Gha, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(1)(Ba), 3(1)(V"Ka") and 3(2)V Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the complainant, the accused used to call her, who by extending threats wanted to have relations with her, but the said allegations are false and no such incident had ever taken place. He submits that the FIR does not contain any particulars, much less the date of occurrence, however, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 16.2.2024, she has described the date of occurrence as 8.4.2023. According to learned Counsel as per her subsequent version, she allowed the accused to stay at her house when her husband was away and the accused had raped her, but the two versions by the complainant are in contradiction to each other, and further the delay in lodging the case has also not been explained.
He submits that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on 26.02.2024 and investigation is over but ignoring the background of the case, the Special Court, Auraiya has refused the concession of regular bail to the appellant vide impugned order dated 15.05.2024. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 be set-aside and the appellant be released on bail.
Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on her behalf.
Learned State Counsel though opposes the prayer but has not disputed the fact that during investigation, no call detail records of the complainant and the accused have been collected, as no phone number of the accused was given by the complainant. Learned State counsel has argued that the trial court has carefully examined the material relied upon by prosecution, while refusing to extend the concession of regular bail to the appellant, and the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this court finds that as per version of FIR, there is no allegation of rape levelled against the accused-appellant, though in the subsequent statements of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C she mentioned about rape also. Since, the investigation in the case is complete, but trial is yet to commence and the allegations by complainant are yet to proved by prosecution, therefore, further detention of appellant behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose. Thus, this Court finds it to be a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant as the conclusion of the trial is likely to consume considerable time. A reading of the impugned order dated
15.05.2024 would show that the Special Court, Auraiya 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 dated 15.05.2024 is not sustainable.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 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 appellantSaifi Yadav, 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.
The appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Shiv
Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail given the inconclusive prosecution evidence and completion of investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saifi Yadav
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
Shiv Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
