High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This is the third criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act moved by the appellant - Prem Chand Rajbhar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.6.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.71 of 2023 under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC, Section 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. It is submitted that firstly the criminal appeal no.6722 of 2023 filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023 and thereafter second criminal appeal no.12125 of 2023 preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2024 and now this is the third criminal appeal before this Court.

4. The sole ground behind the instant appeal is delayed trial and deposition of the victim (P.W.1), which was recorded after dismissal of the second criminal appeal by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after dismissal of the second criminal appeal by this Court, the statement of P.W.1, the victim was recorded before the trial court and during the course of her deposition she did not support the prosecution version in material terms and made a categorical statement that no rape was committed with her and no porn video relating to her was collected by the I.O. during investigation and she herself had not seen the said porn video. It is also submitted that no such porn video was ever made viral by the present appellant. Since the prosecutrix herself denies of the offence of rape against her, there is nothing against the appellant. Since the aforesaid deposition of the victim was not recorded when the second criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Court, the aforesaid grounds could not be taken by the appellant and now the instant criminal appeal has been filed annexing the aforesaid statement of P.W.1, the victim with the affidavit.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the victim in her statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has fully corroborated the prosecution version and rape committed against her by the present appellant. It is also submitted that even in her deposition before the trial court she has been an intact witness in her examination-in-chief and specific allegation of rape and preparation of obscene video against the appellant has been proved by P.W.1, the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that she has undergone a lengthy cross-examination and her evidence was recorded in pieces in a period of about three months and during this long period, somehow she was won over by the accused-appellant giving some statements by her in favour of the appellant.

6. 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.

7. From the perusal of the record it appears that P.W.1, the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. when she was brought to the witness box. She also corroborated the prosecution case as P.W.1 and all the allegations levelled against the present appellant were proved by her, however, the learned trial court proceeded to record the evidence of the prosecutrix for a period of about three months and it appears that during this long period, somehow she was won over by the appellant. Further, only a few statements of P.W.1, the victim, cannot be a ground to grant bail to the appellant by allowing the instant appeal, as this is no rule of evidence that the Court should only pick or choose a few statements of the witness from his / her entire testimony and to draw a conclusion on the basis of that. In her entire testimony P.W.1 appears to have supported the prosecution version. It is not proper at this stage that only on the basis of a few statements occurred in the cross- examination of the victim, the present third criminal appeal of the appellant should be allowed. It is true that the trial is taking some time to be concluded but in this regard a proper direction may be given to the trial court. It is a case of rape committed with an unmarried young girl by a matured person like the appellant.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view it is not a fit case for bail. The order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 1.6.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

10. However, the learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of further six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.

11. It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This is the third criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act moved by the appellant - Prem Chand Rajbhar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.6.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.71 of 2023 under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC, Section 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. It is submitted that firstly the criminal appeal no.6722 of 2023 filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023 and thereafter second criminal appeal no.12125 of 2023 preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2024 and now this is the third criminal appeal before this Court.

4. The sole ground behind the instant appeal is delayed trial and deposition of the victim (P.W.1), which was recorded after dismissal of the second criminal appeal by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after dismissal of the second criminal appeal by this Court, the statement of P.W.1, the victim was recorded before the trial court and during the course of her deposition she did not support the prosecution version in material terms and made a categorical statement that no rape was committed with her and no porn video relating to her was collected by the I.O. during investigation and she herself had not seen the said porn video. It is also submitted that no such porn video was ever made viral by the present appellant. Since the prosecutrix herself denies of the offence of rape against her, there is nothing against the appellant. Since the aforesaid deposition of the victim was not recorded when the second criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Court, the aforesaid grounds could not be taken by the appellant and now the instant criminal appeal has been filed annexing the aforesaid statement of P.W.1, the victim with the affidavit.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the victim in her statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has fully corroborated the prosecution version and rape committed against her by the present appellant. It is also submitted that even in her deposition before the trial court she has been an intact witness in her examination-in-chief and specific allegation of rape and preparation of obscene video against the appellant has been proved by P.W.1, the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that she has undergone a lengthy cross-examination and her evidence was recorded in pieces in a period of about three months and during this long period, somehow she was won over by the accused-appellant giving some statements by her in favour of the appellant.

6. 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.

7. From the perusal of the record it appears that P.W.1, the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. when she was brought to the witness box. She also corroborated the prosecution case as P.W.1 and all the allegations levelled against the present appellant were proved by her, however, the learned trial court proceeded to record the evidence of the prosecutrix for a period of about three months and it appears that during this long period, somehow she was won over by the appellant. Further, only a few statements of P.W.1, the victim, cannot be a ground to grant bail to the appellant by allowing the instant appeal, as this is no rule of evidence that the Court should only pick or choose a few statements of the witness from his / her entire testimony and to draw a conclusion on the basis of that. In her entire testimony P.W.1 appears to have supported the prosecution version. It is not proper at this stage that only on the basis of a few statements occurred in the cross- examination of the victim, the present third criminal appeal of the appellant should be allowed. It is true that the trial is taking some time to be concluded but in this regard a proper direction may be given to the trial court. It is a case of rape committed with an unmarried young girl by a matured person like the appellant.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view it is not a fit case for bail. The order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 1.6.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

10. However, the learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of further six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.

11. It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad