Rahul Gaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7033 of 2023 Appellant :- Rahul Gaur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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

24.06.2023 whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj has rejected the bail application no. 1318 of 2023 of the appellant moved by him arising out of case crime no. 0388 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354, 325, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, and under Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)(W)(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj. As per F.I.R, the of prosecution is that on 05.09.2021 at around 6:00 p.m in the evening when the wife of the informant was alone inside her house. Appellant along-with two unnamed persons entered in the informant's house and committed obscene activities with his wife. When the informant and his mother approached to rescue her, they were beaten by appellant. On raising alarm they all fled away from there addressing informant with caste related words. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for the reasons that the informant had taken Rs. 20,000/- as loan from the appellant but he was not returning the money. It is further submitted that some litigation is going between appellant and his wife and the house of the appellant is situated near the house of informant. It is further submitted that so far injuries of Jitendra are concerned they are found to be simple in nature and no abnormality was found. It is also submitted that the victim is not medically examined and so far as injuries of Rani Devi are concerned they are observed to be caused by hard blunt object while in F.I.R it is stated that appellant attacked the informant and his mother with sharp edged weapon. Applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2023. So far as criminal history of the appellant it is explained through paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit in which the appellant is implicated in five cases after this case. In one case final report has been submitted and accepted by the Court. It is submitted that in another cases the appellant has already been granted bail. 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the impugned order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Let appellant, Rahul Gaur be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant 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 appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant, 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 criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad