Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Diwaker Singh, learned counsel for the State. None for the private respondent though served.
As the delay in filing the appeal has already been condoned, appeal is formally admitted for hearing and, with the consent of parties, it is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Lucknow in Bail Application No.5508/2018, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr PC, arising out of Crime No.701 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
As per prosecution case, on 16.7.2018, FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix, a major lady, alleging in it that on the assurance of marriage, the appellant sexually exploited her and a compromise was arrived into between the two, but yet the appellant did not take her. She further states that now she is not interested to go with the appellant, but a case be registered against him.
Counsel for the appellant submits:
(i) that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecutrix where she alleges that near Trauma Centre of a leading Hospital of Lucknow, she was subjected to rape;
(ii) that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution;
(iii) that the prosecutrix is a major lady and the present appears to be a case of consent;
(iv) that according to the prosecutrix, earlier also she lodged a report and the matter was compromised, but there is no such documentary evidence;
(v) that the prosecutrix has lodged the report just to grab money from the appellant and in such cases where report is being lodged by a victim belonging to SC/ST community, as per Government Policy, sufficient money is being given by the State Government;
(vi) that the provisions of SC/ST Act do not attract against the appellant as it is not the case of the prosecution that because the prosecutrix belongs to a particular caste, she was subjected to offence by the appellant; and
(vii) that the appellant is in jail since 30.7.2018 and there is no substantial progress in the trial which may take sometime for its final disposal, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. However, he does not dispute the age of the prosecutrix.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let appellant Satyam Yadav @ Pinkoo Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-a I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-a I.P.C.
(iv) 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 RKK/-