Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6262 of 2017 Appellant :- Prabhu Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Rai,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Sri Om Prakash, learned counsels for the appellant, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi passed in Bail Application No. 3041 of 2017 (Prabhu Sharma Vs State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 306 of 2017, under Sections 376, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (B) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is submitted that the appellant is aged about 70 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant on account of enmity. It is argued some money was advanced by the husband of the victim from the appellant and their relations became strained, on 04.02.2017 on account of some altercation which took place between them both parties were challaned under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed along with the bail application. It is next contended that the victim moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 07.03.2017 levelling the allegation of rape on the appellant and by the orders of the court the F.I.R. was registered on 12.05.2017. After investigation final report was submitted, however, the prosecutrix somehow managed to get the matter further investigated and charge-sheet was laid against the appellant. It is argued in the charge-sheet except the prosecutrix and her husband and daughter no other independent witness has supported the prosecution version. Lastly, it is contended that the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on 20.06.2017 in which no external or internal injury has been noted. Thus, the appellant, who is in jail since 20.08.2017, is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant is an influential person on account of which their F.I.R. was not registered and the victim was left with no option but to move an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and by the orders of the court case was registered. However, he could not dispute that both parties were challaned under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C on 04.02.2017.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant- Prabhu Sharma, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Vikas/-