Allahabad High Court
Ravi Nagar Alias Ravindra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30808 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5981 of 2024 Appellant :- Ravi Nagar Alias Ravindra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Harikesh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajrshi Gupta,Varunesh Shukl Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Second supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in reply to second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Harikesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dilip Kumar, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ravi Nagar Alias Ravindra Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 896 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Gha), 3(2)(5) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
4. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged on the basis of a complaint given by prosecutrix, wherein it was alleged that she came in contact with one Raj Kumar, who called her on 12.6.2023 alongwith the academic documents to get her employed. She reached there and met Raj Kumar, who was accompanied by Mahki @ Mahkar @ Mehami and they both assured that their acquaintance namely, Ravi would provide the job to her. On 19.6.2023, Raj Kumar and Mahki took the complainant to Garden Gallaria in a vehicle and parked the vehicle, where three persons arrived, who were introduced by duo as Ravi, Azad and Vikas. Thereafter, Ravi called the complainant in the vehicle for a talk where he forcibly raped her, whereas the others kept standing outside the vehicle. On these broad allegations, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.6.2023, but the F.I.R. has been lodged after an unexplained delay of six months on 30.12.2023, and that apart, the allegations of rape have been levelled only against the present appellant. It is further submitted that after registering the F.I.R., the statements of victim were recorded on multiple occasions, which contain variations. According to learned Senior Counsel, in all there are two statements by victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and similarly two statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. While referring to the statements, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that in F.I.R., first statement(s) under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant consistently made accusation of rape only against Ravi, the present appellant, whereas the allegations of rape against Ravi, Raj Kumar, Azad, Mahki and Vikas have been levelled during the recording of her second statement (majeed bayan) under section 161 Cr.P.C on 5.2.2024 (Annexure No.6). Similarly, the allegation of rape as well as the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been introduced while recording her second statement (majeed bayan) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 19.2.2024 (Annexure No.7) wherein she averred that Raj Kumar, Mahki and Ravi, the trio committed rape upon her and also hurled caste related remarks. Thus the victim herself has uttered twisted and exaggerated story on separate occasions. In this way the victim has tried to implicate all the five persons in this matter by way of her subsequent statements, which are false and fabricated and take the entire prosecution story under cloud of suspicion. Further, it is pointed out that co-accused of this case namely, Azad, Vikas Nagar, Mahki alias Mahkar alias Mehami and Raj Kumar have already been extended the concession of bail vide orders dated 21.3.2024, 5.7.2024, 5.7.2024 and 26.9.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2436 of 2024, 3376 of 2024, 4071 of 2024 and 7614 of 2024 respectively. According to learned Senior Counsel, the present appellant also deserves the similar concession as investigation is complete and bald allegations have been levelled against him. The appellant is languishing in jail since 27.4.2024.
6. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been well explained, however it was conceded fairly that the bail conditions granted in one of the cases lodged against the appellant were flouted as in compelling circumstances he was compelled to go abroad but the said conduct has no impact over the present matter. It is also submitted that the story of the prosecution is not natural and plausible as according to the prosecution version the rape to the victim was committed in a car in the public parking of a Mall which is a crowded place and that so in the day light. It is also submitted that at the given date and time of the occurrence, the appellant was traveling by air with his wife from Delhi to Varanasi and relevant documents have been produced before this Court by the appellant including the documents obtained from the Indigo Airlines itself which support the case of the appellant. It is also submitted that the victim has denied for her external and internal checkup, hence there is no medical evidence in favour of the prosecution. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., no time of the occurrence has been disclosed. It is also submitted that contradictory and unnatural statements have been averred by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that no CCTV footage has been collected by the Investigating Officer as incriminating evidence in support of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the proceedings of the case are directed to be stayed against the appellant by this Court in the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.35380 of 2024). It is also submitted that the relevant CDR and Indigo transactions are also evidence to show that on the relevant day the appellant was present in Varanasi. The provisions of S.C./S.T. Act have no role in the instant matter as the appellant never knew that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. community.
7. It is also submitted that the Special Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar has not carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice to him, therefore, the said order calls for interference by this Court. He prays that the impugned bail rejection order be set aside and the appellant be released on bail by allowing the present appeal.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / informant vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that in the F.I.R. and in the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. there are consistent averments with regard to the active participation of the present accused appellant in the commission of the crime of rape. It is also submitted that supplementary statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix have also been recorded and again specific role of the present accused appellant has been disclosed by the prosecutrix in the commission of offence of rape. The defence of alibi taken by the appellant is baseless and false. It is also submitted that the appellant has a criminal history of 26 cases which are heinous offences in nature. It is also submitted that the appellant has flouted the conditions of bail granted by the Court in some of the cases to which he has no explanation. It is also submitted that the appellant dared to file affidavit and applications alongwith the vakalatnama with his forged signatures on the relevant date and time when he was staying abroad and not in India. Hence, he has played fraud to the Court as well and in this regard the first information reports have been lodged against him. It is also submitted that inspite of the aforesaid facts, the appellant also dared to threaten the victim of this case to settle the case on the basis of compromise. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the complainant belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
9. It it also submitted by the learned State counsel that the offences are serious and the name of the appellant has been specifically mentioned by the complainant in the initial version contained in the F.I.R. While referring to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is pointed out that accused persons including the present appellant collectively threatened the victim and rape is committed upon her by the accused appellant while other accomplices had facilitated the commission of crime. It is further submitted that the bail rejection order passed by Special Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar is based upon proper appreciation of material on record, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place on 19.6.2023 at a parking place, but no independent witness has been relied upon by the prosecution and the entire case is based upon the version of the complainant alone. Apart from this, there are variations in her statements recorded under different provisions before the different authorities and further the case of the prosecution is not supported by any medical evidence. Contradictory / fluctuating statements have been given by the complainant at different stages. It may be noted that F.I.R. speaks about only one incident dated 19.6.2023 alleging rape committed by accused appellant Ravi, whereas in the subsequent version recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the accusation of rape has been levelled against co-accused Raj Kumar and Mahki as well. That apart, no particulars of the subsequent occurrence, much less any date and time etc. are given by the complainant relating to the alleged rape by the co-accused persons, and further the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act has also been introduced, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the truthfulness of these allegations would be tested on the basis of prosecution evidence, which is yet to be adduced. The material witnesses in the case are either the complainant or the police officials and at present, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. So far as the criminal cases pending against the accused are concerned, the offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious but these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail and a holistic view has to be taken of all the facts and circumstances, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 648. Further, the trial in this case is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time to conclude and the appellant has been languishing in jail since 27.4.2024, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for extending the concession of bail to the appellant.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the period of incarceration of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
13. Let the appellant Ravi Nagar Alias Ravindra Singh involved in Case Crime No. 896 of 2023, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Gha), 3(2)(5) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025 ss