Madari @ Ranjeet vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6548 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6240 of 2020
 
Applicant :- Madari @ Ranjeet
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh,Prabhu Sharan,Rajesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sriram Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime 57 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case along with co-accused Lallu, who is uncle (chacha) of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the First Information Report was lodged on 08.03.2020 at about 8.00 p.m. by the informant and as per story set up by the informant the minor daughter of the informant had gone out of his house and did not return. The informant and his family members tried to search her, but could not succeed in their effort, thereafter the daughter of the informant was recovered from the house of Lallu, where the applicant was also present, as per the case of the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per F.I.R. after the recovery, the victim narrated the incident that the applicant and co-accused Lallu has dragged her to their house on gun point and there they committed rape with her and the applicant along with co-accused have also threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed the alleged incident to any one.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is vast contradiction in the date of incident. As per First Information Report, the date of incident is alleged to have been occurred on 08.03.2020, whereas in the statement of the victim, which was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the incident took place on 07.03.2020, which makes the prosecution story doubtful.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not made allegation of rape against the applicant and co-accused Lallu, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she took somersault and only made allegation of rape against the applicant and assigned the role of co-accused only of catching hold her leg, that also creates doubt on the prosecution story.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegation of rape as levelled by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant got demolished after perusal of the medical report, whereas the doctor in his report has opined that neither there is any internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim and nor any injury seen on the private part of the victim. He further submits that as per medical report the age of the victim is 16 years and the urine pregnancy test of the victim came negative.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per medical report, no case under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The applicant was falsely implicated only due to village rivalry on the pressure created by the father of the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused who was involved in the alleged incident, namely Lallu has already been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 30.07.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 6092 of 2020. Further submission is that the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused, therefore on principles of parity also the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.03.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 17.03.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that there is no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim and medical also does not support the prosecution case and considering that the co-accused, who was involved in the alleged incident has already been granted bail by this Court, and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Madari alias Ranjeet involved in Case Crime 57 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 12.7.2022

Arvind