Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7042 of 2019 Appellant :- Hukum Katiyar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Despite of the service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one has turned up on his behalf. With the aid and help of Learned A.G.A., this appeal is being decided.
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 bail rejection order dated 19.07.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court no.2, Bareilly in Bail Application No.2600 of 2019 (Hukum Katiyar Vs. State of U.P) arising out of case crime no.315 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 364, 452, 323, 504, 307, 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bhojipura, District-Bareilly.
Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not named in the FIR. Besides this, he is handicapped person. It is highly unlikely that he would involve himself in the commission of the offence. In this connection, attention was drawn to the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured Ms. Sonam whose husband has lodged the FIR. In her statement, she has stated that she got married with Gurvachan Singh on her own volition and accord. On this account, her entire family and relatives were against this marriage. In her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, she, on her own, swelled the number of assailant from five to nine persons without any justification, attributing a general role of gaggling her neck. It seems that there is no injury over her neck. Besides this, co-accused Renu and Seema, who are similarly placed, were admitted on bail on different occasions. Learned counsel claims parity with the co-accused persons. The appellant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the abovementioned contentions or show any document contrary to it.
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 case for bail.
Let the appellant-Hukum Katiyar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 19.07.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court no.2, Bareilly, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Sumit S