Javed v. State of U.P & Anr.

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. However, as per learned AGA, notice has been served to the informant but none appeared on behalf of the informant.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Javed with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Bail Application No. 51 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2025, under Sections 376D, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) and 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, and Section 67 of IT Act, Police Station - Swar, District Rampur

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that victim/informant lodged an FIR in the Police Station on 1.4.2025 alleging therein that on 21.3.2023, rape was committed with her by accused Jabir and subsequently he also called three other persons on the spot and they also committed rape with her and the obscene video of the incident was also made viral on instagram on 17.3.2025 and a complaint was made by her to the police station concerned but no FIR was lodged. It is further submitted that the applicant-accused is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the no obscene video was prepared by the applicant and the said vido made viral by other accused persons. It is further submitted there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why the FIR of the said incident was lodged after about one year of the occurrence. It is further submitted that medical report does not corroborate the prosecution case and the age of the said victim is said to have 45 years. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 4.4.2025. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that two mobile phones have also been recovered by I.O. whereby the obscene video was captured and as a matter of fact the same mobile were not named in the name of the present applicant. However, learned AGA could not explain the factual aspect of the matter that why the FIR was lodged after more that one year. It is further submitted the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.04.2025.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR without any cogent reason, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Akram MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad