Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5859 of 2019 Appellant :- Anwar Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Chand,Sanjay Vikram Singh,Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed today, which are taken on record.
Despite sufficient service upon opposite party no.2 no one appears on behalf of opposite party No.2 nor any counter affidavit has been filed by him.
In these circumstances, I am proposed to decide the appeal with the assistance of learned A.G.A.
Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, 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 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 191 of 2019 (Anwar Ali vs. State of U.P.) rejection order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act Jaunpur in Case Crime No.329 of 2019 under Section 376D, 506 of I.P.C. and 3 (2) 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Urmila Devi and Pramila Devi are real sisters and they are in habit of lodging the frivolous F.I.Rs. against the innocent persons for ulterior motive and purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. registered as Criminal case No.02 of 2019 preferred on 02.01.2019 by Urmila Devi against the Anwar and Meena Devi for outraging her modesty, but this application has been rejected on 17.01.2019 for want of prosecution. Thereafater her sister came into the picture and she has lodged the present F.I.R. dated 19.06.2019 against Anwar, Meena Sen and one unknown person same set of named accused persons as in the earlier one under Section 376-D, 506 IPC ad 3 (2) 5 of the S.C./S.T. Act. The prosecution story of both the cases are almost on the same pattern. It has also been submitted that the victim is a married women and aged about 36 years having mother of five children. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted that appellant is 60 plus (+) years old person. The medical report does not corroborate the prosecution case. Lastly, it has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.08.2019 and the trial is not conclude in near future. It has further been submitted that if he enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not place any submission /document in the contrary.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, 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, and period of incarceration undergone by him, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the appellant- Anwar Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.
(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act Jaunpur, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Pr/-