High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:- "To quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2023, u/s 324, 307, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Bandhua Kalan, District- Sultanpur."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case due to some land dispute as the complainant of the present case was inclined to grab the land of the appellant, and only for this reason, brother of the appellant was also implicated in a rape case by lodging an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, u/s 376 I.P.C., 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, in which, the alleged victim was daughter of the complainant of the present case. In this case, charge-sheet was submitted against the brother of the appellant and after framing of charge, learned trial Court recorded statement of Smt. Rekha (informant of Case Crime No.171 of 2022) on 12.12.2022, who was one of the witnesses in this case. Thereafter, statement of the victim- Varsha was also recorded on 16.01.2023. The private respondent and other family members again started making pressure on the appellant for providing the land, but when this demand was denied, F.I.R. No. 110 of 2023 u/s 452, 324, 308, 560 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act was lodged on 07.07.2023 by Mr. Chhotelal (complainant of the present case) against the appellant on the basis of incorrect facts. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the injured- Smt. Rekha was sleeping along with her daughter- Varsha, at that time, injury was caused to her by the appellant. During the course of the incident, Varsha (daughter of the complainant) woke up and raised alarm. Having heard the alarm, the complainant reached at the place of incident. But, they did not bring injured- Smt. Rekha to hospital. It is next submitted that Neelam- daughter of the injured (born out of wedlock with Moti Lal), who was living two kilometers away and two boys, namely, Sunil and Dilip, who were living 15 to 20 kms away from the place of incident, came to the place of incident, thereafter, the injured was shifted to hospital in ambulance, therefore, the story is suspicious one. It is lastly submitted that till today, only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses. As there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, the appellant is entitled for bail and the order passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the statement of the injured was recorded before learned trial Court, who supported the prosecution version.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the fact that the injured was brought to hospital by Neelam, Sunil and Dilip, but not by Varsha and Chhote Lal. They concedes the fact that only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses till today.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, aforesaid F.I.R.s as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that at the time of the incident, as per the prosecution case, the injured was sleeping with her daughter- Varsha. But she was brought to hospital by Neelam who was residing two kilometers away from the place of incident and by two others, namely, Sunil and Dilip who were residing about fifteen kilometers away from the place of the incident. As all these facts were not considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

7. Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant- Sanjay Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and 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. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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.

9. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously.

10. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Arpan

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:- "To quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2023, u/s 324, 307, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Bandhua Kalan, District- Sultanpur."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case due to some land dispute as the complainant of the present case was inclined to grab the land of the appellant, and only for this reason, brother of the appellant was also implicated in a rape case by lodging an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, u/s 376 I.P.C., 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, in which, the alleged victim was daughter of the complainant of the present case. In this case, charge-sheet was submitted against the brother of the appellant and after framing of charge, learned trial Court recorded statement of Smt. Rekha (informant of Case Crime No.171 of 2022) on 12.12.2022, who was one of the witnesses in this case. Thereafter, statement of the victim- Varsha was also recorded on 16.01.2023. The private respondent and other family members again started making pressure on the appellant for providing the land, but when this demand was denied, F.I.R. No. 110 of 2023 u/s 452, 324, 308, 560 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act was lodged on 07.07.2023 by Mr. Chhotelal (complainant of the present case) against the appellant on the basis of incorrect facts. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the injured- Smt. Rekha was sleeping along with her daughter- Varsha, at that time, injury was caused to her by the appellant. During the course of the incident, Varsha (daughter of the complainant) woke up and raised alarm. Having heard the alarm, the complainant reached at the place of incident. But, they did not bring injured- Smt. Rekha to hospital. It is next submitted that Neelam- daughter of the injured (born out of wedlock with Moti Lal), who was living two kilometers away and two boys, namely, Sunil and Dilip, who were living 15 to 20 kms away from the place of incident, came to the place of incident, thereafter, the injured was shifted to hospital in ambulance, therefore, the story is suspicious one. It is lastly submitted that till today, only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses. As there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, the appellant is entitled for bail and the order passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the statement of the injured was recorded before learned trial Court, who supported the prosecution version.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the fact that the injured was brought to hospital by Neelam, Sunil and Dilip, but not by Varsha and Chhote Lal. They concedes the fact that only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses till today.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, aforesaid F.I.R.s as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that at the time of the incident, as per the prosecution case, the injured was sleeping with her daughter- Varsha. But she was brought to hospital by Neelam who was residing two kilometers away from the place of incident and by two others, namely, Sunil and Dilip who were residing about fifteen kilometers away from the place of the incident. As all these facts were not considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

7. Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant- Sanjay Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and 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. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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.

9. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously.

10. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Arpan