Allahabad High Court
Deepak Bist vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100906
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3018 of 2024
Appellant :- Deepak Bist
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sharad Chand Rai,Shashi Chandra
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559.
None appears on behalf of the informant. Name of learned counsel for the informant is shown in the cause list. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant is delaying the hearing of the bail application only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Learned AGA is available with the records.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut in Case Crime No. 508 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Medical District Meerut. The applicant-appellant is in jail since 12.01.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 07.03.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Yashwant Pratap Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The victim and the applicant were intimate and had consensual physical relations.
2. The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry the victim.
3. The victim accompanied the applicant to various public places and also stayed with him in hotels.
4. The FIR is a result of the said relationship going awry.
5. Delay in lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.
6. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the FIR has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. However, in the latter part of the FIR and the said statements, false and aggravated allegations have been made only to save the failing prosecution case.
7. The criminal case is being leveraged to blackmail the applicant and extort money from him.
8. Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.
9. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.
10. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.
Let the appellant-Deepak Bist be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
Order Date :- 3.6.2024
Vandit
