High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58334 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10150 of 2024 Appellant :- Dileep Rajpoot Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaytri Rajput,Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- Bachan Singh,G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Second supplementary affidavit filed in the matter is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Dileep Rajpoot with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.9.2024 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.264 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351 (3), 64 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba. 3. 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. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 23.8.2024 at about 6:15 P.M., the named accused of this case committed rape with the prosecutrix, who was the wife of Bharat and is a member of SC/ST community, when she came to his shop alone and subsequently the accused again threatened her for dire consequences and hurled abuses by caste related remarks. The husband of the victim was not present at home at that time and when he came back, she disclosed the incident to her husband, who called the police but when the police did not make any help, she consumed some poisonous substance on 23.8.2024 i.e. on the date of the incident itself. She was taken to the hospital where she was admitted for one day. F.I.R. was lodged against the present accused appellant. 5. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. It is also submitted that since the informant borrowed Rs.45,000/- from the appellant, which was not paid and when the appellant demanded his money back, the alleged F.I.R. was lodged against him. It is also submitted that there are some contradictory statements made by the victim under sections 180 and 183 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. Criminal proceedings have been initiated against the appellant in order to usurp the money of the appellant which was borrowed by the informant. It is also submitted that when the police came on spot after receiving information by the husband of the victim, it found that it was a case of routine quarrel between the husband and wife and no incident took place as claimed in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba. It is further submitted that the Court concerned 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. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 27.8.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that there was no possibility of any false implication of the appellant in this case. As a matter of fact, the husband of the victim never borrowed any money from the appellant. The victim consumed poisonous substance under the impact of incident of rape committed to her and also upon the telephone call made by the appellant threatening her for life. It is also submitted that since the victim was admitted in the hospital and for this reason went late to the police station for lodging of the F.I.R., some delay was occurred which is explained in the circumstances of this case. 7. 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. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and also taken into account the police report when after a short while of the incident, the police inspected the spot, the medical report of the victim and also the incarceration period of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Dileep Rajpoot involved in case crime no.264 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351 (3), 64 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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. 11. 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 :- 18.4.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad