Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No

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

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2981 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 396 of 2024 under Section 64(2)(e) B.N.S. 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who was implicated in one case in which he is on bail, is running a medical shop. He further submits that on the date of incident, the victim and her husband visited the shop of the appellant and took some medicines from there and when they started bargaining, the appellant denied to provide the medicines. As a result, they felt offended and F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the informant of the present case against the appellant. He next submits that there are major contradictions in the contents of the F.I.R., in the statement of informant and in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R., on 16.09.2024, the informant went to the shop of the appellant for treatment of his wife, where the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the victim in absence of her husband and when the informant came back, she narrated him the whole incident. Thereafter, statements of the victim were recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., in which, she stated a different version by saying that her husband was advised by the appellant to go to take breakfast and when he went to take breakfast, bad touch was given to her by the appellant who pressed her breast and also touched her genital part. It is also alleged that when the victim's husband came back there, she insisted him to take her away, and when they were going to home, she narrated him the whole incident in the way. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid contradictions in relation to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as statements of victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. are not explained by the Investigating Officer, and all these facts were not considered by learned trial Court at the time of deciding the bail application of the appellant. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.09.2024 and charge-sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and as there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after collecting sufficient evidence, the charge- sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, and as there are sufficient evidence for committing the alleged offense, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the informant and the victim as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there are major contradictions in the prosecution story and in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. But, all these facts were not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2981 of 2024 (supra) is hereby set aside.

7. Let the appellant- Santosh Kumar Verma 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.

8. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Arpan

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

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2981 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 396 of 2024 under Section 64(2)(e) B.N.S. 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who was implicated in one case in which he is on bail, is running a medical shop. He further submits that on the date of incident, the victim and her husband visited the shop of the appellant and took some medicines from there and when they started bargaining, the appellant denied to provide the medicines. As a result, they felt offended and F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the informant of the present case against the appellant. He next submits that there are major contradictions in the contents of the F.I.R., in the statement of informant and in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R., on 16.09.2024, the informant went to the shop of the appellant for treatment of his wife, where the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the victim in absence of her husband and when the informant came back, she narrated him the whole incident. Thereafter, statements of the victim were recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., in which, she stated a different version by saying that her husband was advised by the appellant to go to take breakfast and when he went to take breakfast, bad touch was given to her by the appellant who pressed her breast and also touched her genital part. It is also alleged that when the victim's husband came back there, she insisted him to take her away, and when they were going to home, she narrated him the whole incident in the way. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid contradictions in relation to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as statements of victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. are not explained by the Investigating Officer, and all these facts were not considered by learned trial Court at the time of deciding the bail application of the appellant. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.09.2024 and charge-sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and as there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after collecting sufficient evidence, the charge- sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, and as there are sufficient evidence for committing the alleged offense, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the informant and the victim as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there are major contradictions in the prosecution story and in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. But, all these facts were not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2981 of 2024 (supra) is hereby set aside.

7. Let the appellant- Santosh Kumar Verma 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.

8. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Arpan