Back
2019 Supreme(All) 378
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Kuldeep Kishore Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Application No. 23049 of 2014
Decided On : 25-03-2019
Manish Tiwary, Adv., Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, Adv., Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, Adv., Manish Tandon, Adv., Mukhtar Alam, Adv.
The court emphasized the misuse of bail and the accused's evasion of arrest as grounds for bail cancellation, highlighting the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal process.
Headnote:
Bail Cancellation - Misuse of Bail - Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C - 164, 200, 202 Cr.P.C - 82, 83 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent-2, Yogendra Sagar, in a case involving charges under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C. The applicant, father of the victim, alleged that his daughter was kidnapped, drugged, and gang-raped by the accused and others. Despite non-bailable warrants and court orders, the accused evaded arrest for years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had managed to abscond for years despite non-bailable warrants and police complacence. The court concluded that the bail granted to the accused was being misused, and therefore, ordered the cancellation of the bail.
Issues: Misuse of bail, evasion of arrest, delayed trial proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the accused's prolonged evasion of arrest, misuse of bail, and the delayed trial proceedings.
Final Decision: The bail granted to respondent-2, Yogendra Sagar, was cancelled, and he was ordered to surrender before the police by a specified date.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, Advocate, assisted by Sri R.P. Pandey, Advocate, for applicant; and, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate and Sri Mukhtar Alam, Advocate for accused-respondent-2.
2. This is an application whereby applicant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent-2, Yogendra Sagar, vide order dated 03.06.2014, passed by Sessions Judge, Budaun in Case No. 64 of 2011 under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Bilsi, District Badaun. Applicant is father of victim.
3. Facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of this application, need be summarized as under.
4. On 29.04.2008, applicant lodged a Police Report at Police Station Bilsi that his daughter, Neha Sharma alias Jyoti Sharma had gone to attend her examination of B.A. Part-II, Paper Sociology in the second meeting on 23.04.2008 but has not returned till then and is missing. Report was registered as Missing Report No. 22. Police could not make any progress to find out girl but applicant continued with his private attempts and inquiries to find out whereabouts of girl. He came to know from the witnesses that on the date of incident, his daughter was seen in the Car of one Tejendra Sagar and Neeraj Sharma. Applicant informed this fact to the Police on 04.05.2008. Thereafter Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 378 of 2008, under Sections 366 I.P.C. against aforesaid two persons. On 17.05.2008, applicant's daughter was chance recovered from Railway Station of District Muzaffarnagar. Police got her medical examination conducted on 17.05.2008. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also sought to be recorded on the same date, but Magistrate refused on the ground that victim was not in the state of mind to give free statement, and fear was writ large on her face. Ultimately her statement was recorded on 22.05.2008 and based thereon a final report was submitted by Police on 25.09.2008.
5. Applicant made complaint to various authorities that the statement of girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under duress and she was under influence of drugs. Ultimately an affidavit of girl was also submitted to District Judge, Budaun on 01.07.2008. Applicant also filed a Protest Petition before Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun on 28.11.2008. It was stated in Protest Petition that Neeraj Sharma was a distant relative of victim and used to come to her House. Thereafter, he started bringing Tejendra Sagar which was opposed by the Girl. On the fateful day, she was forcibly dragged in a Car by the above named two persons along with other unidentified persons. After being drugged unconscious she was driven upto Lucknow where again she was drugged and raped by aforesaid two persons and also a close relative of Tejendra Sagar, i.e. Yogendra Sagar, the then sitting M.L.A. of Ruling Party. She was repeatedly gang raped by them for several days. Upon raising public outcry she was released at Muzaffarnagar wherefrom she was allegedly recovered.
6. Magistrate rejected final report, treated Protest Petition as Criminal Complaint, and proceeded to record statement of victim, her father, eye witnesses and Doctor who had examined her, under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter Magistrate summoned Tejendra Sagar and Neeraj Sharma under Section 366, 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C. while Yogendra Sagar was summoned under Section 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 18.08.2009.
7. Tejendra Sagar challenged Magistrate's order dated 18.08.2009 in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 26758 of 2009 but the same was dismissed by order dated 21.10.2009. Tejendra Sagar went in appeal to Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8717 of 2009 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2009.
8. Sri Neeraj Sharma, also challenged summoning order dated 18.08.2009 before Sessions Judge, which was dismissed whereafter he surrendered.
9. So far as respondent-2, i.e. Yogendra Sagar
