Allahabad High Court
Shadik Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142989
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1362 of 2023
Appellant :- Shadik Ali
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Bail Application No.28 of 2023 (Shadik Ali Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.134 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur.
As per the first information report, case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2021 at around 12.00 a.m. the daughter of informant was enticed away by the appellant along with other co-accused Motoo.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the first information report of the case was lodged after seven days of the incident and no explanation was given with regard to delay by the prosecution. After 14 days the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and no pregnancy was observed during medical examination. It is further submitted that co-accused, Motoo has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5735 of 2022. It is also submitted that no incriminating articles was recovered from possession of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution. There are material contradiction in the statement of prosecution recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is in jail since 18.01.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail application and has submitted that the role of present appellant is different with co-accused, Motoo. In the F.I.R. the main role for enticing the victim is attributed to present appellant. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the present appellant had taken the prosecutrix to Mumbai and kept there. He compelled victim to eat non-vegetarian food and was indulged in the process of selling the prosecutrix to some other person and committed rape with her at Mumbai also. The victim remained about one month with him in Mumbai.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the active participation of the appellant in the commission of crime, I do not find it fit case for bail.
Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023
Atul
