Allahabad High Court
Chandan @ Sonu Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 8 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1882 of 2022
Appellant :- Chandan @ Sonu Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant corrected the name of the victim.
Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate filed vakalatnama and short counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2 today, are taken on record.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.07.2022 passed in bail application no. 1787 of 2022 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No. 440 of 2022, under Section 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar by which bail application has been rejected.
Admit.
Learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 2 accepted the notices and learned A.G.A. and respondent no. 2 do not want to file counter affidavit. The opportunity to file counter affidavit is dispensed with.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 12.05.2022 has been lodged by the victim against the appellant and mother of the appellant stating therein that the god-bharai ceremony for the marriage of the victim was taken place on 13.02.2022 and ceremony of bariksha was taken place on 14.03.2022 with the appellant and after these two ceremonies, the appellant called the victim for going to market and she reached the house of the appellant and at that time, the appellant was alone in the house and he made physical relations without her consent. After that the appellant and his family members demanded four lakhs rupees including one motor-cycle in dowry and they denied the marriage.
After lodging of the F.I.R., statement of victim under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and the victim has denied to get her medical examination and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the appellant was arrested on 29.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to misunderstanding. First information report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations. The appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 fairly admit that at the time of incident, the victim was major. It is further submitted that some matrimonial misunderstanding took place between the parties and now the family members of the appellant and the victim are ready to solemnize their marriage.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie it appears that:
(1) The present F.I.R. has been lodged after about three months of the incident;
(2) Two ceremonies of marriage taken place between the appellant and victim;
(3) The incident took place in the house of the appellant.
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 dated 15.07.2022 passed by the court below is, set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Chandan @ Sonu Yadav 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 :- 8.8.2022
VPS
