Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2768 of 2018 Appellant :- Shahrukh Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Pramod Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Bulandshahar passed in Bail Application No. 873 of 2018 (Shahrukh Khan Vs State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2018, under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gulawathi, District- Bulandshahar, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It has been argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the first informant taking advantage of his belonging to scheduled caste in order to take compensation from the government. The alleged victim is the son of the first informant who is aged about 25 years, on whom alleged unnatural sex was committed by the appellant. The F.I.R. was lodged after two days. Medical report clearly reflects that no external injury was seen around the anus of the victim and, prima facie, the prosecution case of alleged unnatural sex on the victim is belied by medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per Contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there was no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant. However, they could not dispute that the medical report does not support the version of sexual assault on the victim.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Bulandshahar is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant-Shahrukh Khan, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his 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 :- 31.7.2018 Vikas/-