Allahabad High Court
Anurag @ Brahma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52322 of 2022
Applicant :- Anurag @ Brahma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Patel
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
List has been revised.
Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of gang rape against woman.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case along with four other named co-accused, namely, Vijay Singh, Jyoti Prakash, Rajveer @ Indra Pal, Kuldeep @ Jai Veer by way of a complaint case. He has submitted that it is a case of absolute false implication. The victim is having affair with one, Prithvi Raj s/o Harnam Singh, who is land mafia having criminal history of 15 cases mentioned in the affidavit to the bail application. He has submitted that proximity of the complainant with the aforesaid, Prithvi Raj is proved from the information given by the Jail Superintendent, Kannauj, which shows that complainant went to meet Prithvi Raj in Jail 30 times in the year 2017-2018, when he was lodged in jail by falsely showing herself sometimes as his sister and sometimes as his Bhabhi. He has submitted that the complainant is neither sister nor bhabhi of land mafia, Prithvi Raj Singh. The applicant and co-accused, Jyoti Prakash are sons of Bajrang Dayal. Bajrang Dayal is real brother of Pappu @ Uali, who lodged first information reported dated 17.08.2020 against aforesaid Prithvi Raj Singh and others, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, which is registered as Case Crime No.361 of 2010, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj and charge-sheet has been filed against him in the aforesaid case.
Prithvi Raj Singh lodged first information report on 01.10.2013, under Sections 147, 302, 201 I.P.C against father of the applicant, the applicant and his two brothers, wherein also final report was submitted by the police. Thereafter Prithvi Raj Singh again lodged first information report on 04.09.2015, registered as Case Crime No.864 of 2015, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant and his brother, Jyoti Prakash and others. The investigating officer has submitted final report in the aforesaid case.There is also Original Suit No.117 of 2012 instituted by Chandra Pal, uncle of the applicant against the Prithvi Raj wherein order of injunction has been passed against Prithvi Raj Singh and others 30.08.2013. It has been submitted that the implication through the complainant has been made by aforesaid Prithvi Raj Singh. The applicant is in jail since 11.10.2022 and has no criminal history except of the cases lodged against him by the aforesaid Prithvi Raj.
Learned Senior counsel has fairly placed before this court the bail rejection order of co-accused, Rajveer @ Indrapal, passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55403 of 2022.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant and has submitted that the allegations against the applicant are quite serious and he does not deserves to be enlarge on bail.
After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that the applicant has been implicated in this case by way of complaint. It is mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant that she had given information of the incident to the police but no action was taken nor her report was lodged. However, this court finds that there is no date mentioned in the complaint when the same was given to the police. The witness of complaint namely, Vimal Kumar, has given affidavit to the circle officer concerned stating that he does not knows the complainant and has never given any statement in court in the complaint filed by the complainant. The relation-ship of Prithvi Raj and the complainant is clear from the information given by the jail authorities under Right to Informant Act. The rejection order of the co-accused, Rajveer @ Indrapal will not effect the bail application of the applicant since the enmity of the applicant with Prithvi Raj Singh is proved from the record and from the rejection order of the co-accused, it appears that the co-accused did not had such a case.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Anurag @ Brahma, involved in Case Crime No.2812 of 2021, under Sections 376-D I.P.C, Police Station Kamalganj, District- Farrukhabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) 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 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
SS
