Sri Raj Kumar Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Diwaker Singh, learned AGA for the State. None for the private respondent though served.
The appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of parties, the case is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act/II Additional Sessions Judge Barabanki in Bail Application No. 964 of 2019, whereby the court below has rejected the application as filed by the appellant for grant of bail, arising out of Crime No. 14/2019, under Sections 376 & 506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & (3)(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki.
As per prosecution case, on 17.01.2019 at 15.02 p.m., FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix herself, a married lady aged about 20 years alleging in it that about a year back, she was subjected to physical relation by the appellant and the appellant assured her of marriage. She states that their relation continued for about a year and during this period also, she had physical relation with the appellant. Based on this FIR, offence under Sections 376 & 506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & (3)(2)(V)of SC/ST Act was registered against the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant submits:
(i) that there is inordinate delay of one year in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution.
(ii) that the prosecutrix is a major lady and from the statement of the prosecutrix, it is apparent that she was a consenting party.
(iii) that even if entire prosecution story is taken as it is, no offence whatsoever is made out against the appellant.
(iv) that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not attract against the appellant, as it is not the case of the prosecution that because she belongs to a particular caste, she was subjected to offence by the appellant.
(vi) that the appellant is in jail since 19.01.2019 and the trial may take some time for its final disposal, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.
On the other hand State counsel opposes.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular, the nature of allegation leveled against the appellant and the evidence collected by the prosecution, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let the appellant Vinod Yadav @ Harkishan Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 SK