Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3311 of 2018 Appellant :- Raj Bahadur @ Jammey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kuamr Yadav,Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad, in Bail Application No. 1888 of 2018 (Raj Bahadur alias Jammey v. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 342, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)5 of Act, 1989, Police Station - Bahariya, District - Allahabad, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per first information report, on 08.03.2018 at about 08.00 P.M., the appellant and co-accused Mulayam Yadav lifted the prosecutrix, a married woman, aged about 22 years and took her near a pond, where both the accused committed rape on her.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that first information report has been lodged on the next day of the occurrence at 09.10 P.M., due to enmity. There is no evidence of rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has sustained no injury, either internal or external. As per first information report, there was enmity between the parties. It is not possible for a single man to lift the prosecutrix lady, aged about 22 years. The prosecution version does not appear natural. He further contended that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 24.03.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that co- accused Mulayam Yadav having similar role, has already been admitted to bail vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3807 of 2018 (Mulayam Yadav alias Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. an Another). Case of the appellant is on the same footing as that of the present appellant. Hence, the present appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
F.I.R. has been lodged after consultation with the prosecutrix. In the F.I.R., role of committing rape is assigned to the appellant and co-accused Mulayam Yadav. However, in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973, role of committing rape is assigned only to the appellant. Co-accused Mulayam Yadav has been granted bail by this Court, as mentioned above.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 07.06.2018 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant - Raj Bahadur alias Jammey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 I. Batabyal