Allahabad High Court
Golu @ Shudhanshi Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1397 of 2022
Appellant :- Golu @ Shudhanshi Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 are present.
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 24.5.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court, Unnao has rejected the bail application No. 1126 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376, IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 24.3.2022 has been lodged by mother of the victim against the appellant and two other named persons stating that on 18.3.2022 when she was sleeping along with family members in her house at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant enticed away his daughter, aged about 18 years. When she woke up, she found that his daughter is not in the house. After that on search being made, she came to know that her daughter is in the house of the appellant. Mother of the victim went to the house of the appellant and met his parents where they denied to tell about the whereabouts of her daughter.
After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.3.2022. The victim has denied to get her medical examination done on 25.3.2022. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.3.2022 and second medical examination of the victim was conducted on 5.5.2022. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant only on 14.5.2022. The appellant was arrested on 30.3.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The victim admittedly was major at the time of incident and as per school certificate, age of the victim was about 22 years. In her statements the victim has stated that she solemnized court marriage with the appellant on 26.2.2022. There is material contradiction/improvement between the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. The appellant has no criminal history.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) The victim was admittedly major at the time of the incident, aged about 22 years;
(b) The victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.;
(c) There is material contradiction/improvement between the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C.;
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 24.5.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Golu @ Shudhanshu Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid 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 applicant 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 applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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 applicant 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.
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 applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
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.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
T. Sinha
