Allahabad High Court
Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi vs State Of U.P.And Another on 14 July, 2021
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1844 of 2021 Appellant :- Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Anubhav Kumar Vimal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
None is present for the respondent no. 2.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi against the order dated 10.02.2021 of learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Mainpuri passed in Bail Application No. 254 of 2021 ( Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2020, under sections 366, 376D I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kurawali, District- Mainpuri, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is challenging the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 on the ground that there is major contradiction between the F.IR., statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and victim. Further submission is that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of more than one year, while it was lodged by the father of the victim himself, no such allegation has been made in the F.I.R. Further submission is that there is no allegation that the victim was put to humiliation in a public place within public view, therefore, the offence under section SC/ST Act is not made out, the F.I.R. does not disclose the incident of rape. Further submission is that general allegation has been made against the accused persons and appellant has nothing to do with the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated in the offence, no rape was committed on the victim, the learned court below did not consider this aspect and illegally rejected the bail application, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayed and submitted that in her statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated about the alleged rape by the appellant, she belongs to SC/ST community and aged about 22 years. Further submission is that charge-sheet has already been filed by the police after investigation.
Perused the available record, the incident is said to have been occurred on 10.08.2019 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.08.2020 and it shows that F.I.R. has been lodged after the delay of more than one year. During this period, it has been nowhere stated that the informant tried to lodge the F.I.R., moreover, in the F.I.R. there is no allegation of rape and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim had returned on 31.07.2020 which is clear from the F.I.R. itself and thereafter, after lapse of 19 days the F.I.R. has been lodged. Clearly there was every opportunity for the informant to know all the facts about the alleged incident and in all probability he must have been informed by the victim. Thereafter, the F.I.R. has been lodged but the rape allegation is missing. The statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that the victim has stated that on 10.08.2019 at 4 p.m. she had gone alone to Kurawali for taking medicine and when she was waiting for vehicle to return home, appellant Jugadi and Anuj said to her to go to her house and she went with them to Balipur Firozabad. She prevented and stated that she would not go with them, but she was threatened that her father will be killed by them. On the contrary when she was examined before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. her version was totally different, she stated that appellant is a truck driver and she knows him very well, on his saying she sat down on his truck, he has given Samosa to her and after eating Samosa she got fainted and thereafter, he took her to his Sasural Balipur and where he took her to field and committed rape on her. Submission of the learned counsel is that both the version are totally different and if there had been any correctness, such variation is not possible. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. and variation in her statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly suggests that the story is manipulated and the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been also submitted that if the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is considered the same is enough for releasing the appellant on bail and this aspect has not been considered by the learned court below. The F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of more than one year and there appears to be no convincing reason shown for this delay. There is variation and deviation in the manner of occurrence at the level of lodging of F.I.R., statement under section 161 Cr.PC. and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. As usual there is no evidence found in the medical report.
In view of the above, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and variation in the narration of the story and variation in all three stages, the learned court below committed illegality in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Mainpuri is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi be released on bail in Bail Application No. 254 of 2021 ( Jagendra Yadav Alias Jugadi vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2020, under sections 366, 376D I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kurawali, District- Mainpuri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021/Bhanu