Allahabad High Court
Ramzan vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 930 of 2021
Appellant :- Ramzan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The appellant by way of instant appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.6.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge II/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act in case crime No.84 of 2017 under Sections 376 (D), 506 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, police station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed application for bail in aforesaid case crime.
3. The appellant had earlier approached this Court for grant of bail in aforesaid case crime which was rejected by this Court by means of order dated 1.9.2020 on the ground that considering the fact that there was consistent statement made by the prosecutrix during investigation wherein under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has clearly implicated the applicant and also that the medical report too supported the version of the prosecutrix. This second bail application has been pressed on the ground that trial has commenced and during trial the complainant as well as the prosecutrix have turned hostile and their statements have been annexed along with supplementary affidavit. The statements of the prosecutrix recorded on 22.7.2021 and 27.7.2021 reveal that the prosecutrix has denied the entire occurrence and the incident. It has been further submitted that there is no other evidence apart from the statement of the complainant and the prosecutrix which could implicate the applicant even considering the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Sanjeev Nrandu, 2012 (8) SCC 450. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in light of the aforesaid facts there is no chance of conviction and also that there is no corroborative evidence or medical report in support of the prosecution and also that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2019 and may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the instructions the prosecutrix has turned hostile and that there is no other evidence collected during investigation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that subsequent to rejection of the first bail application the prosecutrix and the complainant have turned hostile and further that there is no other evidence on record against the applicant collected during investigation and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of bail.
7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 15.6.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge II/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act in case crime No.84 of 2017 under Sections 376 (D), 506 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, police station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside.
8. Let the appellant, Ramzan, involved in in case crime No.84 of 2017 under Sections 376 (D), 506 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, police station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond 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 would not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P. C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law.
9. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
