Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1614 of 2018 Revisionist :- Chandan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Singh,Ajay Yadav,Faizan Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Singh,Trivikram Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. On the last date, Sri Ajay Yadav, learned counsel for revisionist had prayed and had been granted three weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. Since the matter had remained pending for long, it had been directed to be listed in top ten cases on the understanding that the matter will be heard today.
2. Today, illness slips has been filed on behalf of both counsel of opposite party no.2. Consequently, the matter is being taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. Present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court no.9, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No.168 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Sudhir Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.539 of 2017, under Sections 323, 341, 352, 354, 354D, 506 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S.
Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.
5. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist does not have any criminal history and that there is no clear evidence as may warrant summoning of the revisionist at this stage.
6. Perusal of the order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court no.9, Varanasi reveals that at present the revisionist has been summoned on the basis of the evidence of the victim which has been found to be consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also the FIR narration of the occurrence.
7. In view of the above, no interference is warranted at this stage.
8. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Meenu