Allahabad High Court
Mohit Rathore vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 16 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37777
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1133 of 2024
Appellant :- Mohit Rathore
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Smriti
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aakanksha Shah,Arti Dwivedi,Vivek Kumar Divedi
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Akanksha Shah, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi in Bail application No. 443 of 2024; Mohit Rathore Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2024, under Sections - 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and Section - 3(2)(V) of S.C. / S.T. Act, registered at Police Station - Sandila, District - Hardoi.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
5. He further stated that on perusal of the statement of the victim made in terms of Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer, as also, the Court concerned, would show that the appellant and the victim were known to each other prior to the alleged incident and this period is of about two years, as victim, who at relevant point of time was a student of Class XI, herself stated that she knows the appellant from Class IX and at the time of act, as alleged by the prosecution, she was in Class XI and as such it can be inferred that both were having feelings for each other.
6. He submitted that it further appears from the facts of the case that both were not aware about the consequences of the penal laws including the POCSO Act, as, the victim, as per the case of the prosecution, was aged about 17 years, though as per medical report the victim at relevant time was 19 years old, went with the appellant, aged about 18 years.
7. It is further submitted that it appears that after coming to know about the relationship of the appellant and the victim, the parents of the victim became annoyed as such, the FIR was lodged and under pressure the victim made the statement(s) making certain allegations against the appellant and all the allegations in fact are not correct.
8. It was also stated that in the present scenario, a female student of Class XI would not go on natural call or to ease herself in open place.
9. He further submitted that the appellant has no previous criminal history, which has not been opposed by the A.G.A., and also that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.
10. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.
11. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as also, going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order and evidences and reasons recorded therein by the trial Court, the statements of the victim, her age and age of the appellant and also that both are students, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.
12. Orderdated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi in Bail application No. 443 of 2024; Mohit Rathore Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2024, under Sections - 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and Section - 3(2)(V) of S.C. / S.T. Act, registered at Police Station - Sandila, District - Hardoi, is hereby set aside.
13. Let the appellant - Mohit Rathore be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
14. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law
15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Lokesh Kumar
