High Court
Case Details
1 Order Reserved On:-13.04.2023 Order Delivered On:-17.04.2023 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8435 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Saurabh Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sheo Shankar Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; 1. learned AGA for opposite party no.1; Sri Anuj Datt Mishra, Advocate, holding breif of Sri Sheo Shankar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 162 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 377, 395, 412, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station – Sarpathan, District – Jaunpur, There are allegations in the FIR against appellant, two named and 3. three unknown accused regarding commission of offence of gang-rape and threatening against a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste. The FIR version is that at about 8:00 pm in the night when the prosecutrix was going to the house of her sister, six persons on three motorcycle came and after pulling her inside the bushes, committed the alleged offence. The appellant alongwith co-accused, Arpit and Risabh, alleged to have videographed the incident also. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant by a woman belonging to scheduled caste. She has intensified allegations made in the FIR and has stated that unnatural offence was also committed against her by the accused persons when there was no such allegation in the FIR. He has submitted that in the medical report of the prosecutrix no injury was found on her private parts. She had got her medical examination conducted on her own. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that if the incident alleged took place in a bush, there were bound to be injuries suffered by the prosecutrix on her body externally. Only one bruise (3cm*3.5cm) was found on her right leg which can be caused by other means also. No incriminating video was 2 recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigating. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.07.20220. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemently 5. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that there was no reason for false implication of the applicant. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., offences are fully made out against the applicant. In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court 6. below dated 30.09.2022 is, hereby, set aside. 7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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. Let appellant, Saurabh Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid 8. 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. 3 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date:- 17.04.2023 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad