Sonu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8631 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 453 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Sonu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav,O.P. Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant corrected the name of opposite party no. 2.

Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri O. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

Despite service of notice upon victim/complainant/opposite party no. 2, none has appeared for opposite party no. 2.

The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to set aside the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in bail application no. 1991 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 866 of 2020, under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao by which the bail application has been rejected by the court below and to enlarge the appellant during trial.

Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 27.12.2020 has been lodged by the victim against the appellant on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that the husband of the victim has died prior some years. The first informant was working in Agro Company situated at Dahi Chowki Industrial Area and the appellant was also working there. The appellant made friendship with the first informant and stated that he would maintain her two sons and ensure to care take of her sons and he made physical relationship on the false promise of marriage and living with first informant in live-in-relationship for the last four years. When the first informant pressurize the appellant to solemnize marriage with her, the appellant did not solemnize marriage with the first informant and on 15.06.2020, at about 05:00 A.M. when she again talked about her marriage with the appellant, the appellant abused her using caste derogatory words and committed maar-pit by kicks and fists and denied to marry her and also took Rs. 25,000/- of the first informant and solemnized marriage with someone else. The appellant also threatened the first informant with dire consequences.

After lodging of the F.I.R., statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 29.12.2020, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 04.01.2021 and medical examination was conducted on 25.02.2021. After recording the statement of other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet against the appellant has been submitted on 05.03.2021. The appellant has surrendered on 26.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, the appellant has made friendship with the first informant and he was living in live-in-relationship with the first informant and made physical relationship with the first informant on the basis of false promise of marriage. The F.I.R. has been lodged after four years of the first incident. The appellant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 26.02.2021.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhas v. State of U.P. AIR 2021 SC 1405.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail but he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) the F.I.R. has been lodged after four years of the first incident.

(b) as per prosecution case, the appellant made physical relationship after having friendship with the first informant since last four years on the basis of false promise of marriage.

(c) appellant is languishing in jail since 26.02.2021.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The order of rejection of bail dated 27.09.2021 passed by the court below is, set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

Order Date :- 1.8.2022

VPS