Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Despite service of notice, nobody is present on behalf of victim/complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 30.11.2019, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No.8400 of 2019 (Dinesh Singh & others Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow. Further a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant/applicant on bail in the said case crime.
As per version of the F.I.R. on 03.02.2015, at 9.30 A.M. when the complainant was discharging her home affairs named accused persons having illegal arms and lathi, danda came there and took away his bullock cart and gave filthy abuses indicating her caste and beaten the complainant with fists and kicks and some sharp edged weapon due to which she sustained injuries. Initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 323, 504, 506, 394 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act, but when the charge sheet was filed Section 394 IPC was dropped. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that due to village rivalry this false case has been lodged. Complainant was having six injuries on her body at different parts. Injury No. 2 and 4 were found simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object whereas a reference was made for X-ray of skull, wrist joint and fore arm but there is no X-ray report on record.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused-applicant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 30.11.2019, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No.8400 of 2019 (Dinesh Singh & others Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant [(Pinku Singh (Amresh Singh)] be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant/applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(ii) The appellant/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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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/applicant 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 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.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 ML/-