The Allahabad High Court has allowed the conditional bail of Surya Pratap Singh, accused in the case of raping a married woman by entering the house and threatening her with a pistol.
A Single Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Surya Pratap Singh.
The criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Additional Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad in Bail Application, arising out of Case under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj.
As per prosecution version, on 18.06.2019 at around 02.30 pm, when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house alongwith her children, the appellant entered into her house and committed rape on her on the point of Tamancha. Appellant abused her by addressing her caste related words and also threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone and if she disclosed the same to anyone, he would kill her and her family.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix herself has given an application alongwith affidavit to the Investigating Officer that due to some dispute with regard to the money transaction, she lodged the F.I.R and no action shall be taken against the appellant.
It is also submitted that prosecutrix has filed a criminal writ petition in which the Division Bench of the Court observed that prosecutrix has narrated in her writ petition that she was not subjected to rape.
It is also submitted that appellant was challaned under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C having some dispute with the prosecutrix and on that pretext the F.I.R has been lodged. The first information report of the case was lodged after an inordinate delay of 3 months and no explanation has been given for such delay.
It is further submitted that prosecutrix is major and married lady and no sign of rape was observed during her medical examination.
It is also submitted that the C.D.R report also does not corroborate the version of prosecution as the last location of appellant was found at Rajapur. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit.
Lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 22.05.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has corroborated the version of prosecution. The daughter of the prosecutrix who was present at the place of incident, corroborated the prosecution version.
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 liable to be allowed”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
The Court ordered that,
Let the appellant, namely, Surya Pratap Singh involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 are 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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the Court.