Anupam Singh @ Guluwa v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2459 of 2023 Appellant :- Anupam Singh @ Guluwa Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla,Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA 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 to set aside the impugned order dated

30.01.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 231 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabganj. The case of the prosecution as per the FIR is that the informant belongs to schedule caste community. The appellant on 18.07.2022 at around 11.00 pm when prosecutrix went to ease herself caught her from behind and committed rape with her. On raising alarm the mother-in-law and father-in-law and other persons reached the spot but the appellant managed to escape from the spot. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The age of the victim is 24 years. It is also submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of three months through court concerned. It is also submitted that nothing adverse was noted in the medical examination of the prosecutrix. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2022 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that so far as the observation made in the medical examination is concerned, nothing was found since medical examination was conducted after three months of the incident. The victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she consistently corroborated the version of FIR. Apart from it independent witnesses Umesh, Dashrath and Ramdas have also corroborated the version of prosecution. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 30.01.2023 is affirmed. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The criminal appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to record the statement of victim within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 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. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Mohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad