Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4053 of 2018 Appellant :- Umar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain,Mohd. Hasham Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Sri Mayank Mishra, learned A.G.A. states that notice on opposite party no.2-Ranjeet Singh has been served personally on 27.8.2018, but none is present on behalf of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 18.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, (Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act) Prevention of Atrocities Act, Muzaffarnagar in Bail Application No.11 of 2018 ( Umar vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 582 of 2018, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 3(1)baa (ii) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khatauli, District- Muzaffarnagar whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely Umar and Ajim alleging that on 26.6.2018 they kidnapped the daughter of the complainant. After two days she was recovered.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2018 (about two months); having no criminal history; he is 22 years of age and is doing graduation; the prosecutrix was major according to medical certificate and School Leaving Certificate and she stated before the doctor that she went with Umar in the house of Umar's sister and Umar had done noting wrong with her and she was recovered on 27.4.2018; in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that Umar belongs to her village and she went with Umar for marriage; no internal medical examination was done of the prosecutrix; there is no independent witness and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.
Learned AGA 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 18.7.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Umar 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 :- 21.8.2018 OP