Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3619 of 2018 Appellant :- Jeetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Office report dated 20.9.2018 reflects that C.J.M., Mathura has intimated vide letter dated 18.8.2018 that notice has been served on respondent no. 2 in person yet no one has appeared to argue the matter on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State- Respondent and perused the paper book.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed questioning the correctness of the order 30.5.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Mathura arising out of case crime no. 529 of 2017, u/s 363, 366, 376, 120-b IPC read with section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Highway, District Mathura whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.
It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely nominated in this case, there is no allegation of rape on the appellant. The victim has specifically stated that co-accused Vikas on the pretext of marrying her has established physical relation with her. The only allegation against the appellant is that he along with co-accused Pooja had extended threats to the victim. Lastly it is submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Vikas.
Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and supported the impugned order. However he could not point out anything material on the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 30.5.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Mathura is, hereby, set aside.
Let appellant, Jeetu be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
(ii). 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 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Dhirendra/