Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Sengar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4763 of 2022
Appellant :- Rajesh Sengar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Prem Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi,Sushil Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material 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 Rajesh Sengar to set aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hathras has rejected the bail application No. 695 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 78 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 8.4.2022 was lodged by the victim stating that the she knew the appellant for two years and on the basis of false promise of marriage the appellant made physical relation with her. On 25.3.2022 victim asked the appellant for solemnization of marriage, but he refused to marry with her, abused by using caste derogatory words and threatened with dire consequences.
After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.4.2022. Medical examination of the victim was also conducted on 9.4.2022. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.4.2022. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 12.4.2022.
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 relation between the appellant and the second respondent was consensual in nature. It is further submitted that the victim was 25 years old at the time of the incident. Consent of the victim is not immediate result of false promise of marriage. It is further submitted that there is no mention of date and place where first time he made relation with the victim. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 12.4.2022. The appellant has no criminal history.
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. and learned 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. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They 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 victim was 25 years old at the time of the incident;
(b) Consent of the victim is not immediate result of false promise of marriage;
(c) As per prosecution case, the victim made physical relation on pretext of false promise of marriage, but there is no mention of date and place where first time he made relation with the victim.
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 13.6.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Rajesh Sengar 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 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 :- 23.11.2022
T. Sinha
