Madan Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 15997 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2970 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Madan Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Bahadur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the second respondent, Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Madan Yadav to set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2022, whereby the Additional Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad has rejected the bail application No. 960 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 354, 336 I.P.C and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- George Town, District- Prayagraj.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 29.09.2021 has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant and four unknown persons stating that the victim had lodged an FIR as Case Crime No. 1008 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V), SC/ST Act, in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant. On 02.02.2021, when the victim was going to Prayagraj Station and reached at the gate of CMP Degree College, appellant and other unknown persons caught hold the victim and after dragging get her into the campus of College and entered in a meeting hall and committed indecent behaviour with her and abused her. When she anyhow escaped from the College and was going to George Town Police Station for lodging report, the appellant and other co-accused persons further attempted assault with the intention to commit murder and thrown the victim in a drain (Nala) and assaulted by stones and bricks. After reaching the passerby, she saved. She sustained injuries in the incident. After that his report had not been lodged by the police, then she sent a registered complaint to the Superintendent of Police.

After lodging of the first information report, statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had been recorded. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet had been submitted against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 06.12.2021.

Learned Senior 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 and appellant both had love affairs since 2014 and made physical relations since 2014 till lodging of the FIR of Case Crime No. 1008 of 2019 about five years. It is further submitted that the FIR of the Case Crime No. 1008 of 2019 was lodged on the pretext of false promise of marriage committed rape against the appellant and his mother, in which the appellant granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2020.

It is further submitted that in the present case, the victim had not sustained any single injury on her body and this fact itself belies the entire prosecution story. During the investigation, Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence with regard to the injury of the victim.

It is further submitted that there is no occasion to made any talk for compromise with the victim after releasing of appellant on bail. It is further submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2021 in a no injury case. The appellant has not committed any offence and not pressurized the victim for compromise. The appellant is Assistant Professor (Economics) in CMP Degree College and evidence of staff member including the Principal of CMP Degree College have not supported the prosecution case in their statements.

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 counsel for the second respondent have supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. They 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 victim has not medically examined in the present case;

(b) In earlier Case Crime No. 1008 of 2019, the appellant was released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.04.2020;

(c) Case Crime No. 1008 of 2019 had been lodged against the appellant alleging that on pretext of false marriage, the appellant committed rape with the victim as the victim had love affairs with appellant for five years before lodging the FIR.

(d) The prosecution witnesses, where the incident took place, have not supported the prosecution case in their statements;

(c) The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2021.

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 16.04.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Madan 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.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the appellant alongwith 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 :- 4.11.2022

Shafique