Chaman Singh v. State of U.P.) in connections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168844 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1994 of 2024 Appellant :- Chaman Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandan Sharma,Vikas Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shashank Tripathi Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3. 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 impugned order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Special Court, S.C/S.T Act, Bulandshahar in Second Bail Application No. 396 of 2024 (Chaman Singh Vs. State of U.P.) in connections with Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections 452, 376, 313, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahar. 4. First Criminal Appeal of the appellant bearing number 7248 of 2022 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2023. 5. As per version of the prosecution, it is mentioned in the first information report that father of the victim was doing labour in the field of appellant since 9-10 years. The victim also used to go there for labour work. Taking advantage of the situation the appellant committed rape frequently from 4-5 years with the prosecutrix and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The appellant also caused miscarriage by consuming medicines to her. When after marriage of the prosecutrtix, she came back to her parental house the appellant established physical relations with her forcefully. 6. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant was not in his village on 22.05.2022. The prosecutrix refused to undergo for medical examination, therefore, the version of committing rape is not corroborated by any medical evidence. It is contended that father of the victim has taken loan from the appellant at the time of marriage of the prosecutrix on 14.01.2022 but his money was not returned and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no medical evidence of causing miscarriage. The appellant is languishing in jail since 07.09.2022 having no criminal history. It is also submitted that since the statement of the victim has been recorded, therefore, there is no chance of tempering the witnesses of fact. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process. 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. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that the statement of the victim has been recorded. 8. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." 9. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. The impugned rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 11. Let appellant, Chaman Singh 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 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. (ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant 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 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 the trial court. (v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 12. 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 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 in accordance with law. 13. 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 appellant, if there is no other legal impediment. 14. 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. 15. The criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 22.10.2024 PS