Allahabad High Court
Paramveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179963 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5244 of 2023 Appellant :- Paramveer Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. The notice were issued to serve upon opposite party no. 2 repeatedly but report is submitted by learned C.J.M, Bareilly that informant Munni Devi is not residing at the address given in the F.I.R since eight months.
2. Learned A.G.A has stated that he also has the same report regarding opposite party no. 2-Munni Devi.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
4. Learned A.G.A informed that service on opposite party no. 2 is sufficient as per record available with him.
5. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly in Bail Application No. 1301 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 720 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504,506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(da) and 3(1),dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly.
6. The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R is that the husband of the prosecutrix was employed with named accused Ravindra Singh later on her husband left the job while Rs. 8000/- was due upon accused Ravindra which were not given by him inspite of repeated demands. On 02.12.2021, the informant and her husband went to Ravindra Singh to receive their money where present appellant-Paramveer Singh was also present. Ravindra Singh asked the husband of the informant to obtain the cylinder from some other place. When the husband of the informant left the present appellant along with Ravindra Singh address the informant with caste related words, threatened her and had committed rape with her. When the husband of the informant returned he was also addressed with caste related words and was beaten up. The medical examination of the informant was conducted on 03.12.2021.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to pre-existing enmity with Suresh Pal Singh who is the history sheeter. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 02.12.2021 while the first application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved by the prosecutrix on 06.12.2021 which was rejected on 21.07.2021 for non appearance of the prosecutrix, hence another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved on 22.09.2022 in which order for registration of the F.I.R was passed on 09.12.2022 and ultimately the F.I.R was lodged on 14.12.2022. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that her husband was employed with present accused Paramveer which was contradictory to the averment made in the F.I.R. One another person Amit son of Madanlal was also involved in the incident and after the investigation he was exonerated and no charge-sheet has been filed against him. It is further submitted that in medical examination of the prosecutrix no sign of any rape was observed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ritu Tomar Vs. State of U.P & Ors, 2023(3) JIC 14(SC) and has argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the report as relevant to the fact submitted by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant also narrated the report so submitted by the police in which it is referred that Munni Devi has died as a result of it the informant was not traceable even for the service of the present appeal. It is further submitted that in supplementary affidavit the medical report of the prosecutrix is also brought on record which indicate that no internal or external examination was conducted and it was simply M.L.C examination. It is also submitted that in the first application moved under Section 156(3), certain allegations were made which are not incorporated in the subsequent application. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. So far as criminal history of the appellant is concerned most of the cases are registered in the year 2022 and 2023. It is also submitted that appellant has been granted bail in case crime no. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S Faridpur, District Bareilly in which the entire criminal history of the appellant has already been considered.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. 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.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
12. Let appellant, Paramveer Singh, involved in the above Case 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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.
13. 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 :- 18.9.2023 PS