Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 310 (ALL)

Rinku @ Premveer Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-02-11

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Rinku @ Premveer Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr in Bail Application No.3437 of 2024. 3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that the married victim of this case was taken by the accused appellant from her house in the night of 29.5.2024 and he took her to the house of his co-brother-in-law where rape was committed with the victim by the present accused appellant and subsequently when the victim requested him to marry with her he refused. FIR was lodged, the victim was medically examined and now the charge sheet has been committed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible or natural and there are three fold stories in the FIR and in the statement of victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that there are lot of contradictions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix herself. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.6.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 9.7.2024. It is further submitted that in this case rape was committed with married lady by taking her from her house in the night by the accused appellant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and also keeping in view the contradictory averments made in the FIR and in the statements of victim herself, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside 9. Let the appellant - Rinku @ Premveer Singh involved in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) 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. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) 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. (v) 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.