Amar Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 15403 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4301 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Amar Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Singh Gour,Tinku Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellant is taken on record.

Heard Shri Vijay Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the second respondent, Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act has been filed by the appellant Amar Singh Yadav to set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act/Additional Session Judge, Allahabad has rejected the bail application No. 2130 of 2022, of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 206 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506, 342, 313, 376, 377 and 392 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj.

Brief facts of the case is that first information report dated 29.05.2021 has been lodged against the appellant and three other named persons including the son, wife and daughter of the appellant. The victim stated that she has develop love affair with co-accused Abhishek, on 08.10.2016 at about 11:00 am he offered some tea, biscuit and cold drink to her and after drinking the cold drink co-accused Abhishek committed rape with her, at about 10:00 pm when she got conscious she dial co-accused Abhishek and he promises to solemnize marriage with her and after that he repeatedly committed physical torture and she become pregnant but the co-accused aborted and she again got pregnancy after three months but they again aborted after that he snatched her ornaments and abused caste derogatory words and denied to solemnize marriage with her. On 30.12.2020 the accused persons demanded one chain, ring, Car and two lacs rupee. On 03.01.2021 at about 2:00 pm the appellant committed rape with her and abused with caste derogatory words and threatened with dire consequences. On 08.01.2021 co-accused Abhishek committed unnatural offence with her and also committed marpeet with kicks and fist.

After lodging the first information report the statement of victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded respectively on 29.05.2021 and 11.06.2021. Medical examination was conducted on 02.06.2021 and after recording statement of other prosecution witnesses charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and investigation against other co-accused is pending under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 376, 377 IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.

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 second respondent filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As per aforesaid petition marriage of victim and co-accused Abhishek was solemnized on 23.04.2016. It is further submitted that the other co-accused Abhishek, Manju and Pragya filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition before this Court, which has been filed for quashing the impugned first information report in which the matter was sent to Mediation Centre. It is further submitted that as per mediation report Rs. 5,50,000/- has been paid to the second respondent.

It is further submits that one cheque bounce case is also pending in the court against the second respondent which has been filed by co-accused Abhishek. It is further submitted that appellant is implicated due to matrimonial dispute, there is no other evidence with regard to the offence except the statement of victim. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 03.05.2022.

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. as well as learned counsel on behalf of opposite party have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the mediation become failed. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He 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 marriage of victim and co-accused Abhishek was solemnized on 23.04.2016;

(b) The opposite party no. 2 files Matrimonial Case No. 509 of 2020 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against co-accused Abhishek;

(c) The investigation against the other co-accused persons is pending;

(d) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7332 of 2021, 10212 of 2021 which have been filed by other co-accused for quashing FIR are pending and matter was sent for Mediation.

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, their 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 03.06.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Amar Singh 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 them 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 they 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 applicants 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 applicants, 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.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

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.

Order Date :- 1.11.2022

Arti