Allahabad High Court
Ankit vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 4 August, 2023
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51566 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1078 of 2022 Appellant :- Ankit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. Heard Shri Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.
2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit. The same is on record.
3. As per the office report dated 30.05.2022 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.
4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.
5. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Sitapur in Bail Application No. 105 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and P.A. Act, 1989, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and regarding some financial dispute.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is some financial dispute between the husband of the prosecutrix/opposite party No.2, as the husband of the opposite party No.2 has taken a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the appellant, when the said money was demanded, then some hot talk took place and against the husband of the prosecutrix and six other persons the police submitted challani report under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by that action, the husband of the opposite party No.2 put forward the opposite party No.2 and made a false story and lodged the present F.I.R. by moving application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. regarding the incident, which ought to have happened one week prior to lodging of the the Challani report, whereas no such incident took place.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the said F.I.R. was lodged to get some financial benefits by the State Exchequer to implicate the appellant in the provision of SC/ST Act.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is an admitted fact that the first application was given by the opposite party No.2 on 10.06.2021 and another application on 16.06.2021 before the Superintendent of Police by registered post that is after the Challani Report dated 08.06.2021 that shows that entire story is build up in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is after the incident dated 08.06.2021, just to give colour to gravity of the offence and to falsely implicated the appellant in the present case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the allegation of rape demolished when the prosecutrix has refused for her medical examination, therefore, in absence of any medical report it cannot be said that the appellant has made sexual relations with the prosecutrix forcefully, thus the entire story is false and fabricated only lodged with the intention to defame the image of the appellant and his entire family in the society, so that amount of Rs. 14,000/- be not paid by the husband of the prosecutrix.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2022, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Sitapur in Bail Application No. 105 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and P.A. Act, 1989, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the accused/appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
13. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 13.03.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but did not dispute this fact that there is already challani report dated 08.06.2021 in respect of some dispute between the husband of the opposite party No.2 and the appellant. that shows that entire story is build up in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is after the incident dated 08.06.2021, but prayed for rejection of the present appeal and submits that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief by this Court.
15. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there is some financial dispute between the husband of the prosecutrix/opposite party No.2, as the husband of the opposite party No.2 has taken a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the appellant, when the said money was demanded, then some hot talk took place and against the husband of the prosecutrix and six other persons the police submitted challani report under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C.. There appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that being aggrieved by that action, the husband of the opposite party No.2 put forward the opposite party No.2 and made a false story and lodged the present F.I.R. by moving application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. regarding the incident, which ought to have happened one week prior to lodging of the Challani report, there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in absence of any medical report it cannot be said that the appellant has made sexual relations with the prosecutrix, thus the entire story is false and fabricated only lodged with the intention to defame the image of the appellant and his entire family in the society and further considering the fact that appellant is in jail since 13.03.2022 and has now by done a substantial period of detention and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, both the impugned orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Sitapur in Bail Application No. 105 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and P.A. Act, 1989, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur is hereby reversed and set aside.
17. Let the appellant, Ankit, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and P.A. Act, 1989, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur with the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-
(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.
(b) 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, and
(c) 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.
(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.
(iv) The appellant 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) The appellant shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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 against him in accordance with law.
18. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.
19. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, within a period of one year from today, by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 04.08.2023 Arvind