Thakur Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10788 of 2023 Appellant :- Thakur Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pawnesh Tiwari,Shatrughan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶2The 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

27.09.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No.164 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Harpur Budahat, District Gorakhpur.

¶3There is an allegation against the appellant that on 22.07.2023 at around 2.00-3.00 pm the appellant committed obscene activities with the daughter of the informant and locked her with him and closed the door from inside. When the daughter of the informant raised alarm some ladies of the village came there and rescued her.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated for the reason that the buffaloes of the first informant used to damage green grass of the agricultural land of the appellant. When a complaint was made the first informant had beaten the appellant. Appellant is a man of 60 years having two daughters. There are material contradictions in the statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. No allegation has been made about the rape in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that medical report also does not corroborate the version of the FIR. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since

21.08.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶5Per 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 eye witnesses Geeta and Shanti had given statement that they had seen the appellant fleeing away from the room when the informant was found with him. During her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim has consistently made statement about the act committed by the appellant.

¶6It 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 27.09.2023 is affirmed.

¶7Having 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.

¶8The criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶9The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶10It 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 :- 1.12.2023 Mohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad