Babloo Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9823 of 2023 Appellant :- Babloo Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Ms Reema Gupta, learned A.G.A has informed that service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 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

29.08.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda has rejected the bail application no. 2975 of 2023 (Babloo Gupta Vs. State of U.P.) of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 376,452, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Atarra, District Banda. As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2023 at around 3:00 p.m the appellant called and sent watsapp messages to the prosecutrix and entered in her house and tried to outrage her modesty. The prosecutrix called her brother Umakant and her husband Kailash Baudh. The appellant had beaten the brother and husband of the prosecutrix and fled away. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that appellant and prosecutrix was the members of the Samajwadi Party, the appellant thereafter joined another political party, therefore, this F.I.R has been registered due to political rivalry. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of the F.I.R and the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In the F.I.R, the prosecutrix has narrated that at the time of incident her husband and brother came at the place of occurrence while in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she stated that her son Prince came there while in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that her husband came there after receiving her call. He further submitted that medical report of the prosecutrix does not corroborate the version of the prosecution. Further, it is submitted that there are no allegation to invoke any evidence under S.C/S.T Act. So far as criminal history of appellant is concerned, it is explained in paragraph-18 of the memo of appeal. The appellant is languishing in jail since 20.07.2023. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant but he 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, Babloo Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two local 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 :- 27.10.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad