Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4532 of 2019 Appellant :- Guddu Shukla @ Jitendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Anjani Kumar Rai,Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, Senior Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Verma,Siya Ram Verma
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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, 2015 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Kaushambi, in Bail Application No. 10 of 2019 (Guddu Shukla @ Jitendra Vs. State of U.P), arising out of case crime no. 205 of 2018 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (VA) and 3 (1) D SC/ST Act, Police Station- Paschim Sharira, District- Kaushambi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and SC/ST Act on 17.12.2018 against the appellant and two named persons with the allegation that the victim is employee in polyclinic, the appellant and other two persons have abused her by caste and assaulted her. The appellant had forcibly administered poison substance to her and on account of which she became unconscious and thereafter with the help of other employees of the hospital where she was provided treatment. The incident took place on 22.04.2018 and the FIR was lodged through the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 328 IPC is triable by Magistrate and he is languishing in jail since 14.04.2019.
Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
I have perused the injury report of the victim. The doctor has opined that it is of suspected case of poisoning by four persons and all the offences is triable by the Magistrate.
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, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant- Guddu Shukla, 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 APPLICANT 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 HIS 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 willful 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 27.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Kaushambi, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 v.k.updh.