Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 678 of 2018 Appellant :- Ashu Saini Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mehul Khare,Amit Kumar,Amit Tripathi,Rajeshver Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Sri Amit Tripathi and Sri Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant have filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut, in Bail Application Nos. 5657 of 2017 (State v. Ashu Saini) and 103 of 2018 (State v. Ashu Saini), arising out of Case Crime No. 982 of 2017 (State v. Ashu Saini), under Sections 376, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(5) of Act, 1989, Police Station - Sardhana, District - Meerut, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution version, on 26.11.2017 at about 12.50 P.M., the appellant had put his penis in the mouth of the victim, daughter of informant Preeti, aged about 5 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that informant/private-respondent has refused to get the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The informant had borrowed Rs. 4,000/- from the appellant. On demand being made by the appellant to return the said money, some altercation took place between them. Accordingly, this F.I.R. with false allegation has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that shop of the appellant is situated in a crowded market. The appellant was not present on the spot at the alleged time of occurrence. In support of this fact, the photographs of C.C.T.V. camera footage is placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed in the Court. He further contended that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 29.11.2017.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court, but admitted this fact that on the application of the informant, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was not recorded.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant - Ashu Saini be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 I. Batabyal