Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3483 of 2019 Appellant :- Surja And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Harish Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Subhash Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
List has been revised but counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 is not present in the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Bail Application No. 942 of 2018 (Suraja and others v. Prema Devi), in Complaint Case No. 28 of 2018 and Bail Application No. 944 of 2018, under Sections 457, 376Gha, 395, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)5 of Act, 1989, Police Station - Karwi, District - Chitrakoot, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution version, on 06.03.2018 at about 02.00 A.M., the appellant and other co-accused entered into the house of the prosecutrix/respondent no. 2, committed rape on her and looted her belongings.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no medical evidence corroborating the fact of rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Magistrate concerned and the allegation of rape on her was not made against the appellants. That application was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant filed another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 before Special Judge with false allegation of rape against the appellants. The mother of the appellant and other co-accused have lodged three complaints before the District Magistrate against Kamta Prasad, husband of the prosecutrix, who is Gram Pradhan of the village. Co-accused Natthu has lodged a report of non-cognizable offence against Kamta Prasad, husband of prosecutrix/respondent no. 2 and other persons. In the back drop of the said circumstances, this application has been filed by the respondent no. 2 with false allegation.
Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Sunil Kumar has already been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2019 vide order dated 13.3.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case of the appellants stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused Sunil Kumar, who has already been granted bail by this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that the appellants are in jail since 02.11.2018 and they have no criminal history to their credit.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the appellants are in jail since 2.11.2018 and they have no criminal history to their credit.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.
Let the appellants Surja, Natthu @ Vinay and Swambar involved in Complaint Case No. 28 of 2018, under Sections 457, 376Gha, 395, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Karwi, District Chitrakoot be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellants 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 them 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Neetu