Allahabad High Court
Shyamata vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 279 of 2021
Appellant :- Shyamata
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(Crl. Misc. Application No. 25612 of 2021)
Counter affidavit filed is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application for bail has been moved in the aforesaid criminal appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2005 relating to Case Crime No. 417 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Ikauna, District Shrawasti.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim herself has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was with the applicant since long back, as her parents had taken some money from the applicant for the treatment of the victim and when the applicant demanded back the said money, the mother of the victim told the victim to go to the house of the applicant, on which, she went with the applicant and reached at Lucknow and they stayed there for some time. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the prosecutrix was also examined before the trial court where she deposed in her examination-in-chief that in the night of the date of incident, three persons entered into the hut and by tying her hands and legs and putting cloth on her face, took her away to a tube well in the village. She also stated that at the tube well, her face was opened by the accused persons, where she saw Banshi, Shyamata (appellant) and Dukhram. She also stated that Kripa Ram, Ram Samujh and Jagatram were also there. The wives of Ram Samujh and Jagatram were also at the tube well. Thereafter, Banshi and Shyamata (appellant) brought her to the Nabbagaon, however, Banshilal returned back from the village Chetra. She also stated that the appellant-Shyamata confined her in a room for about one month.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in her examination-in-chief, the victim also stated that on the date of incident, her mother was also sleeping in the verandah outside the hut. However, the mother of the victim, who was also examined as P.W.1, deposed before the trial court that she did not notice the incident. It is, thus, submitted that the learned trial court committed error in appreciation of the evidence and convicted the appellant. It is also submitted that appellant is having confidence that his appeal, which is already admitted on 11.02.2021, will be succeeded, but there is no possibility in near future for the final hearing of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that during trial, appellant was on bail and had never misused the liberty of the bail granted by the court below and, therefore, the applicant-appellant, who is in jail since 06.01.2021, is entitled for bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the evidence placed before it at the time of trial and there is no illegality in the same. However, he does not dispute the fact that appellant-applicant was on bail during the course of trial.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the judgment of the court below, it is evident that appellant was on bail during the course of trial. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to languish the applicant-appellant in jail till the outcome of the instant appeal.
Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.
Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.
Let the applicant-appellant, namely, Shyamata involved in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2005 (supra) be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions;
(i) The appellant-applicant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The appellant-applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is further directed that the appellant shall deposit the 50% of the fine amount within two months from the date of release.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Akanksha
