Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5201 of 2017 Appellant :- Rajaram Mali Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Office report indicates that notice has been served but none is present on behalf of complainant.
Heard Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.N. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 24.6.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Jalaun in Bail Application No. 726 of 2017 (Rajaram Mali Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2017, under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 IPC & Section 9M/10 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act and Section 3(2)(5)(Ka) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Orai, District- Jalaun whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged on 15.5.2017 against Rajaram Mali and Manager of Maharshi Vidya Mandir, Orai, Jalaun alleging that on 10.5.2017 he assaulted the daughter (12 years) of complainant Santosh Kumar with intent to outrage her modesty and threatened to kill her brother.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.5.2017 (near about one year and four months); having no criminal history, there is no independent witness against the appellant. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. There was no allegation about sexual harassment. The entire prosecution story is absolutely false, baseless and concocted. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. There is no legal evidence against the applicant and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that applicant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.5.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Rajaram Mali involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 A. Singh