Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2763 of 2018 Appellant :- Rupesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Behari Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
In the counter affidavit it is stated that notices have been served on respondent no. 2 and 3 yet no one appeared on their behalf.
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 27.4.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2, Mathura in Bail Application no. 1049 of 2018 (Rupesh vs. State of U.P.), Case Crime no. 210 of 2018, u/s 376, 323, 506 IPC and section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldev, District Mathura whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.
It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the first informant, which happens to be maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, who as per medical report was found to be 19 years of age, it appears that the false implication of the applicant is on account of claiming compensation from the government and for blackmailing the applicant, who belongs to different community. It is argued that as per the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she was forcibly abducted by the applicant and co-accused on 20.3.2018 at 2.00 pm and thereafter she was raped by the applicant through out night and next day at about 10.00 am she was dropped near a culvert and fled away, however, the F.I.R. was lodged after three days on 24.3.2018 at 10.38 pm, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on 26.3.2018 and no injury of any kind on her private part was noted, on the contrary her hymen was found intact, based on the medical report it is argued that if the victim was continuously raped for several time as alleged then position of hymen would not have been intact. The applicant is in jail since 19.4.2018 having no criminal antecedent to his credit.
Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and supported the impugned order. However he could not point out anything material on the contrary.
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 27.4.2018 is, hereby, set aside.
Let appellant, Rupesh 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 :- 27.7.2018 Dhirendra/