Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3676 of 2017 Appellant :- Shyam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar,A.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Maohammd Nadeem
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and Maohammad Nadeem, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 5.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Bail Application No.38 of 2017 ( State vs. Shyam Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 2017, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gurusahaiganj, District- Kannauj whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against Karan on 1.3.2017 after three days of the incident alleging that on 26.2.2017 he kidnapped the daughter of complainant 13 years of age. Subsequently, she was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. She stated that Karan had kidnapped her and she went with him along with ornaments and Karan raped her without her consent. This accused Shyam Yadav was also present at the time of kidnapping but he had done nothing wrong with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.3.2017 (more than one year and three months); having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated; main role of kidnapping has been levelled against co-accused Karan; no offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant; there is no independent witness 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 and learned counsel for the complainant 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 5.5.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Shyam Yadav 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