Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1896 of 2018 Appellant :- Karan Siingh @ Chali Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Ojha
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, counsel for respondent no. 2, 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 19.3.2018 passed by Session/ Special Judge, Lalitpur in Case Crime no. 605 of 2017, u/s 376(2), 498, 342, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Jakhalaun, District Lalitpur whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.
It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the victim is a married lady and on account of some differences with her husband, she was left by her husband. This fact has been stated by the victim in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She has further stated that about ten months before lodging of the F.I.R. the applicant had established physical relation with her on the pretext of marrying her and when the victim got pregnant she forced the applicant to marry her and on his refusal the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecutrix appears to have established consensual physical relation with the applicant. The appellant is in jail since 23.2.2018.
Per contra learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim has fully corroborated the prosecution version in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
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 19.3.2018 is, hereby, set aside.
Let appellant, Karan Siingh @ Chali Yadav 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 :- 23.8.2018 Dhirendra/