(Crl. Misc. Application No.37169 of 2020)
1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist.
3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the revision is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the revision.
4. The application is allowed and delay is condoned.
Order on Revision
1. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sultanpur in respect of Case Crime No.531 of 2019 under Sections 376D, 406 IPC, Police Station Jaisinghpur, Sultnapur.
2. The appellate Court has rejected the appeal considering the allegations and the report of the District Probation Officer.
3. The accused-revisionist has been in jail since 29.11.2019. The prosecutrix in the complaint/FIR did not allege rape by the accused-revisionist neither she in her statement recorded under Section 161 made any such allegation. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had alleged rape by three accused i.e. Arvind Verma, Sanjay Verma and present revisionist.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, bail order of co-accused-Sanjay Verma has been placed on record. Learned trial Court has granted bail to co-accused, Sanjay Verma vide order dated 12.06.2020 passed in Bail Application No.878 of 2020. Similarly, main accused-Arvind Verma has also been granted bail vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC-I, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.31 of 2020.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts that co-accused have been enlarged by the Sessions Court itself and the accused-revisionist is now major and he has been in custody since 29.11.2019, there is no criminal history of the accused-revisionist, it would be appropriate to allow this revision and set aside order dated order dated 06.02.2020 (supra).
6. Let revisionist Shiv Poojan Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 revisionist 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 revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionist 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 revisionist 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 absence of the revisionist 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 in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.2.2021 prateek