Allahabad High Court
Ku.Chhaya vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 2097 of 2018
Appellant :- Ku.Chhaya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State. None for respondent no.2 though served.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 21.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.10, Unnao in bail application No.282 of 2019, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr PC, arising out of Crime No.13 of 2018 under Sections 366A, 372 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao.
As per prosecution case, on 21.1.2018, FIR was lodged by Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the prosecutirx alleging that from her house prosecutirx had accompanied the applicant and one Maya and since then her whereabout are not known. Further case of the prosecution is that later, the prosecutrix was sold in favour of one Arvind.
Counsel for the appellant submits that:-
(i) similarly placed co accused Smt. Rama has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7983 of 2018 (Smt. Rama Vs. State of U.P. and another) on 31.05.2019.
(ii) even taking the entire case of the prosecution as it is, offence under Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), as alleged, is not made.
(iii) the appellant is in jail since 22.1.2018 and considering the nature of incident and number of witnesses, there is every possibility that the trial may take sometime for its final disposal; and
(iv) considering the nature of incident and the material collected by the prosecution, there is every possibility of acquittal of the appellant.
On the other hand, opposing the submission advance by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been argued by learned State Counsel that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant. He however, does not dispute that the case of the appellant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and the fact that similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let appellant Ku. Chhaya 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 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 her counsel. In case of 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 her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against 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 her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant shall have serious repercussion on 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 :- 8.7.2019
nethra
