Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 382 of 2021 Appellant :- Dhruv Chandra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Narsingh Pandey
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Exclusive Special Session Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Basti, in Case Crime No.183 of 2020, under Sections 376(1) I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sonaha, District Basti.
Contention, in brief, is that insofar as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, she is major. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is different from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As regards name and identity of the applicant, the prosecutrix herself says that some unknown person gripped and committed rape on her and she does not know him. However, upon being asked by the police, she told that person while committing rape on her has spelt his name as Dhruv Chandra. Insofar as statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the story slightly developed therein with specific name of the applicant who committed crime in question. Even statement given by the prosecutrix to the doctor is to the extent that some unknown person committed rape on her. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.07.2020.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has specifically pointed out that in this case, the story was developed by the police regarding unknown person for committing the offence in question. How can it be said that when name of the applicant very much figures in the first information report itself who committed the offence in question.
Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 rkg