Allahabad High Court
Rahul Verma vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 16 October, 2019
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1368 of 2019 Appellant :- Rahul Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Verma,Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Rahul Verma, under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Crime No. 69 of 2019, Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506, 504 I.P.C., 63 Information Technology Act & 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, dismissing the bail application of accused-appellant.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity for the purpose of harassment. Appellant committed no offence. He submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 19 years; F.I.R. is delayed by 12 days and no sufficient explanation; there is contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim alleges that accused has been committing rape with her for last six months; and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears that she was a consenting party. Although, she has made an allegation of rape against the appellant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault. Appellant is in jail since 05.04.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Appeal has been vehemently opposed from the side of respondents but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and it has been submitted that accused threatened the victim and raped her on the fateful night as stated by prosecution.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, allegation against the appellant, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., detention of appellant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, appellant deserves bail.
6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
7. Let appellant Rahul Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
2. The appellant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.
3. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.
8. In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. However, it is provided that Trial Court shall proceed the trial in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., expedite and conclude the trial within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. In case, trial is not decided in the stipulated time, Trial Court shall inform this Court explaining entire circumstances and seek further time, otherwise it shall be treated as disobedience of the order of this Court.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Manoj