Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2830 of 2018 Appellant :- Rahul Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Office report dated 17.9.2018 reflects that the notice as directed by the Court could not be served on respondent no. 2- prosecutrix as she has left the village about one year back along with her husband, who is working as labourer. In view of the said report, the Court is inclined to decide this appeal with the add and assistance of learned AGA for respondent no. 1.
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 2.5.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/ Additional Session Judge, Etawah in Case Crime no. 07/2017, u/s 376D, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Civil Line, District Etawah, whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.
It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant had applied for bail in the present case before the Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, which was rejected by order dated 18.4.2017. The said order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 2620 of 2017 which was dismissed by order dated 18.8.2017. It has been argued that after dismissal of the appeal certain fresh development has taken place and thus an application for bail was again moved before Special Judge which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 2.5.2018. Learned counsel has again touched upon the merit of the case and has stated that though according to prosecution it is a case of gang rape by the appellant and co-accused, who were not known to the prosecutrix and she came to know their names when they were taking names of each other while she was abducted by them in a temple. He further submits that the appellant and co-accused were not put up for identification during investigation and were made accused solely on the basis of vague statement of the prosecutrix as stated above. Beside it, several other submissions in order to demonstrate falsity of the allegation made against the accused has been placed before the court. In addition to it, stress has been laid by counsel for the appellant that the appellant is languishing in jail since 3.1.2017. The charges were framed on 7.7.2017, thereafter, several dates have been fixed for prosecution evidence but till date not a single witness has been examined. Despite several notices being issued to the prosecutrix she has not appeared to depose in the trial and thus the court issued NBW on 6.6.2018 as reflected in the certified copy of the order-sheet of the trial. It is argued that personal liberty of the appellant is great jeopardy and he may not be kept under detention any longer as no useful purpose would be served by keeping in jail especially when the prosecutrix is not coming forward to depose against the accused for reasons best known to her. In the light of the aforesaid, possibility of the conclusion of trial seems to be remote and bleak, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier prayer for bail has been rejected by the court but could not dispute that earlier appeal was dismissed on 18.7.2017 and more than one year has been elapsed.
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 2.5.2018 is, hereby, set aside.
Let appellant, Rahul Verma, 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/