Allahabad High Court
Anuj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2971 of 2022 Appellant :- Anuj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Ojha Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and peruse the material on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Anuj to set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2022, whereby the Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur has rejected the bail application No. 238 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 55 of 2022, under Sections 147, 354B, 504, 506, 376/511, IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) 3(1)(dha), 3W(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.3.2022 has been lodged by the victim against the appellant and four other named persons stating that on 14.2.2022 at about 1.00 p.m. when she was returning from school, at that time at National Highway near kailaguan crossing the appellant, who is a taxi driver, obstructed her way and boarded in his taxi. After that he started molestation and on her crying abused her and threatened with dire consequences. When he reached village Banauli, other co-accused persons abused the victim by using caste derogatory words and threatened with dire consequences. On 3.3.2022 other co-accused persons pressurized the victim to compromise in the case. The victim is student of B.A. IInd Year.
After lodging of the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.3.2022. The victim has denied to get her medical examination done on 13.3.2022. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.3.2022. Second statement of the victim was recorded on 5.4.2022. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 23.3.2022.
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 first information report has been lodged after about one month of the incident. It is further submitted that the victim has denied to get her medical examination done. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction or improvement between the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. and second statement of the victim with regard to offence punishable under Section 376/511, IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.3.2022. The appellant has no criminal history.
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. and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit 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) First information report has been lodged after about one month of the incident;
(b) During the investigation offence under Section 376/511, IPC has been added;
(c) There is material contradiction/improvement between the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. and second statement of the victim. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;
(d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.3.2022.
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 19.4.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Anuj 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 :- 2.11.2022 T. Sinha