Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6660 of 2017 Appellant :- Sadar Pal @ Tauwa Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hari Nad Singh
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Hari Nand Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against order dated 04.07.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly passed in Bail Application No. 90 of 2017 ( Sadar Pal @ Tauwa vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2017, under section 376D I.P.C. and section 3(2)V The SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt, District Bareilly, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law, as it has failed to consider that in statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. victim has said nothing against the appellant, she has clearly stated that appellant had not sexually assaulted her rather she was assaulted by others, whom she did not know. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned AGA while opposing the prayer for bail has submitted that in view of statements of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has supported the prosecution, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application does not suffer from any illegality. However, he has not disputed that victim has not given statement against the appellant in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has also submitted that victim has said nothing against the appellant in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case specially the fact that victim had said nothing against appellant under section 164 Cr.P.C. and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Order dated 04.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Sadar Pal @ Tauwa be released on bail in Bail Application No. 90 of 2017 ( Sadar Pal @ Tauwa vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2017, under section 376D I.P.C. and section 3(2)V The SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt, District Bareilly, on 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 :- 23.2.2018 Bhanu