Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6025 of 2019 Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Adhana Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shyam Bhasker,Atul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Amrendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kaustubh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 16.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Bail Application No.4552 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.548 of 2019 under Sections 376, 313, 328, 354A, 354B, 323, 504, 506 and 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Medical, District- Meerut.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself under the aforesaid actions of I.P.C. on 27.07.2019 for the incident said to have been taken place on 27.07.2019 against the applicant. It is submitted by the counsel that the informant is a habitual of blackmailing and on earlier occasion too she has lodged an FIR against one Sonu which was registered as case crime no. 260 of 2017 under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act on 02.05.2017. After investigation the proceeding under Section 182 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the informant. Thereafter again the same informant/victim lodged the present FIR on 27.07.2019 against the applicant and six other persons who are applicant's family members. A long and short of the FIR is that she was in the relationship with the applicant from last two years. She being an ambitious lady and the applicant is politically well connected person. She tried to use the applicant for achieving her goal. Both of them went to Lucknow and established physical relationship with each other. This relationship has continued for a considerable time for almost 1-1/2 years without any resistance or objection. She herself is a lady of 24 years. In the medical the doctor has unable to give any concrete opinion about the sexual assault upon her and her hymen was found ruptured. There is no sign of any sexual assault over her person, which clearly indicates that the victim is a consensual relationship with the applicant. There is no obscene video or photos collected by the police during investigation or there is any report of regarding miscarriage of child and denying the allegation of Section 313 IPC. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2019.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Ajay Kumar Adhana, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 16.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019/Abhishek Sri.