Allahabad High Court
Vipin vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 6 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1280 of 2022
Appellant :- Vipin
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Vikram
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Ajay Vikram, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite service upon opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, none has appeared for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.
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 06.05.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar has rejected the bail application No. 513 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 129 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 34, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 14.9.2021 has been lodged by uncle of the victim against the named co-accused Ranjeet Patel stating that Ranjeet Patel enticed away his minor niece on 29.8.2021, aged about 13 years and the victim has taken with her Rs. 10,000/- and one gold chain from her home at the time of enticing away.
After lodging of the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 19.10.2021. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 20.10.2021. The victim has denied to get her medical examination done on 20.10.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 25.10.2021. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant Vipin, Ranjeet Patel, and Chhotelal. The investigation is pending against co-accused Sunny. The appellant was arrested on 25.1.2022.
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 appellant is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction/improvement between the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. As per statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on 25.10.2021, the appellant has been assigned only the role of merely making the victim sit in the tempo. It is further submitted that named co-accused Ranjeet Patel and his father Chhotelal Verma, have been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2022 and 26.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 587 of 2022 and 368 of 2022.
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. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that 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 he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits 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 appellant is not named in the first information report;
(b) There is material contradiction/improvement in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;
(c) Named co-accused Ranjeet Patel and his father Chhotelal Verma, have been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2022 and 26.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 587 of 2022 and 368 of 2022.
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 appeal is allowed.
In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below is liable to be and is, hereby, set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Chhotelal Verma be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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/endeavor 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 :- 6.8.2022/Ishan
