Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 980 of 2021 Appellant :- Prempal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Notice was sent to respondent no.2 and the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his letter dated 12.4.2021 has conveyed that the notice has been personally served. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Prempal against the impugned order dated 11.1.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit passed in Bail Application No. 35 of 2021 (Prempal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.390 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Gha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Barkheda, District- Pilibhit, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.
The F.I.R. was lodged naming the appellant with the allegation about incident during 1.1.2013 to 15.10.2020 that when the victim was about 13-14 years in age and had gone to take medicine, the appellant came by his motorcycle and as the victim was knowing him fully, on his saying to leave her, she took lift on the motorcycle. On the way, the appellant made her inhale something by which she got fainted and then he took her to a place and committed rape on her. He also took the photographs and video of the incident. When the victim became conscious, the appellant showed her the video and photographs and threatened that he would do the same viral and on threatening he continued committing rape on her. On 14.10.2020, the appellant asked her on phone to come and meet him and when she refused, he started abusing her with casteists words and also shown the said photographs and video to so many persons. F.I.R. was, therefore, lodged.
Submission of learned counsel is that the incident has taken place during last 8 years and it cannot be believed that during the whole period she made no complaint even to her parents nor the parents could know about this activity. It has also been submitted that the victim has given confused answer when she was asked by the Investigating Officer with regard to place where the rape was committed. It has also been submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No such video or photographs as alleged in the F.I.R. has been placed for perusal before the Investigating Officer, which shows that it is a false version. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that without taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Special Judge has rejected the bail application only on the ground that the rape has been committed on a girl belonging to scheduled castes community. The impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that regarding the incident of rape, the victim has been examined by I.O. and she has been further examined by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in both of her statements she has supported the F.I.R. version. The learned Special Judge has considered all aspects and has rightly rejected the bail application.
Considered the submissions of both the sides, it appears strange that the relationship/rape continued for about 8 years with the victim and she did not make any complaint not disclosed this fact to her parents. This fact appears to be unnatural and shows that there is all possibility of false implication in the case. It is strange that the learned Special Judge has taken note of the fact that from the last about 7-8 years the victim was being raped by the appellant, but he has not given any cogent reason why this fact was not brought into the knowledge of even parents much earlier or in the beginning of the whole incident, I find apparent illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.1.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Prempal be released on bail in Bail Application No. 35 of 2021 (Prempal Vs. State of U.P.) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Anil K. Sharma