Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5914 of 2019 Appellant :- Hridesh Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Uday Gopal
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant today in the Court is taken on record.
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, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for quashing the bail rejection order dated 11.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No.1629 of 2019 in case crime no.315 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi.
Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant and opposite party no.2 are divorcee. Both are having one kid. It is next contended that as per FIR, friendship was developed between them which resulted into establishment of physical relationship. This relationship lasted for 3-4 months without any objection. The girl joined the company of the appellant and went to Kanpur and thereafter Babina without any resistance and they spent quality time with each other. Thereafter, appellant has wriggled out from his promise. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Pramod Suryabhan Powar Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in 2019 Lawsuit(SC) 1504 to buttress his contention. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2019.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts as well as the legal propositions.
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 applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the appellant-Hridesh 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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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 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 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 11.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Sumit S