Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3201 of 2021 Appellant :- Raj Kumar Lodhi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A,Babu Lal Ram
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri J.N.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 21.06.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Case Crime no.108 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the opinion of the doctor, the age of the victim is 16 years as per her ossification test and by giving the benefit of two years either ways, she seems to be major girl. More over, she in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement she has declined that there was no physical assault was made by the applicant and this is the reason behind that she has refused to get herself for medical examination. The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2021.
Learned A.G.A and Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that the victim is a minor girl and as per the Transfer Certificate of Class VIII/Junior Highschool.
After evaluating both the versions and as per the ossification test report she is 16 years and by giving two years margin she seems to be major girl. More over she in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that no sexual assault was made by the appellant. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode in which the appellant has been summoned and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant-Raj Kumar Lodhi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(iii) 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 IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT 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 IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 21.06.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Abhishek Sri.