Pradeep Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2111 of 2023 Appellant :- Pradeep Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kaustubh Singh,Gangeshwar Pandey,Mrs.Suniti Sachan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. Heard Mrs.Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Navendu Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3837 of 2023, Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 406, 420, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned A.G.A. for the State has already filed counter affidavit and in reply thereto, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by learned counsel for the appellant, which are available on record. In spite of service of notice upon opposite party no.2 vide office report dated 18.12.2023, no counter affidavit has been filed nor any counsel has appeared on her behalf, as such, it appears that she is not interested to contest this case. Since learned counsel for the appellant presses urgency in the matter as the same pertains to bail, therefore, this Court has no other option but to proceed further in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case only with intention to get financial aid from the State Exchequer as the prosecutrix belongs to S.C./S.T. community and the appellant belongs to forward caste. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that from bare perusal of the first information report as well as statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix remained with the appellant for more than two months in different places including Lucknow and Delhi on her own consent. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix had admitted this fact that she came in contact with the appellant from last six months. Relying on the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the parties appear to be consenting in nature and allegation of rape was made by the prosecutrix on the pressure created by the police as well as her family members. The allegation of providing job and also making of video clips or photographs is also false as the Investigating Officer has not produced any evidence in the charge sheet and this fact has also been confirmed by the learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that allegation of rape got demolished after perusal of medical report, wherein doctor has clearly stated that no internal or external injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix even no discharge or semen was found at the time of examination and there was no evidence of forceful penetration by blunt object and the final opinion was awaited till receiving of F.S.L. report, which is still not received. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per her own statement, the prosecutrix is aged about 30 years, as such, she is major who knows the consequences very well. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 16.04.2023 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however, he is unable to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the present case is lodged only with intention to get financial aid from the State Exchequer as the prosecutrix belongs to S.C./S.T. community and the appellant belongs to forward caste; from bare perusal of the first information report as well as statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix remained with the appellant for more than two months in different places including Lucknow and Delhi on her own consent; the prosecutrix had admitted this fact that she came in contact with the appellant from last six months, as such, it appears that the parties are consenting in nature; the allegation of providing job and also making of video clips or photographs is also false as the Investigating Officer has not produced any evidence in the charge sheet and this fact has also been confirmed by the learned A.G.A. for the State; allegation of rape got demolished after perusal of medical report, wherein doctor has clearly stated that no internal or external injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix even no discharge or semen was found at the time of examination and there was no evidence of forceful penetration by blunt object and the final opinion was awaited till receiving of F.S.L. report, which is still not received; as per her own statement, the prosecutrix is aged about 30 years, as such, she is major who knows the consequences very well and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in

(2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3837 of 2023, Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 406, 420, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)

(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow is hereby set aside and reversed. Let the appellant, Pradeep Pal be released on bail in the Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 406, 420, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter-33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and

(c) 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.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 19.12.2023 Saurabh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench