Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3950 of 2018 Appellant :- Salahuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
According to counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. notice on opposite party no. 2 has been served on 6.6.2018, but learned counsel for the complainant is not present.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 14.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8/Special Judge POCSO Act, Bulandshahar in Bail Application No.3231 of 2017 ( Salahuddin vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 413 of 2017, under Sections 377/511 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kakod, District- Bulandshahar whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellant Salahuddin alleging that on 23.8.2017 he assaulted the son of the complainant for unnatural wishes.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no legal evidence in support of the prosecution version; no offence under Section 377/511 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. According to prosecution case, the allegation has been made only under Section 377/511 I.P.C. meaning thereby he had only try to do so; the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.8.2017 (about eleven months); having no criminal history; F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the complainant after one day with legal consultation and afterthought and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant 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 14.11.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Salahuddin 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 :- 25.7.2018 OP