Allahabad High Court
Shivam Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 November, 2019
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2621 of 2019 Appellant :- Shivam Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vipin Kumar,Rahul Saxena,Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant annexing suicide notice today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly in IInd Bail Application No.853 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.1869 of 2018 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Baradari, District-Bareilly.
Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident took place on 18.12.2018 and the highly belated FIR was got registered on 31.12.2018 against the appellant and his family members. The next submission is that informant's daughter(deceased/victim)(20) was all alone. The informant's husband went to attend his government duty and the informant went to market to purchase certain households. Taking the advantage of this absence, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself with the allegation that she was in affair with the appellant and he used to send obscene and derogatory messages on her mobile. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the following points :-
(i) That this FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 34 days of which there is no justification.
(ii) Secondly, it is urged that there is suicide notice annexed to supplementary affidavit which clearly shows that she has never attributed any role to the appellant. The photograph and love letter indicates that both of them were in deep and dense love affair and she wants to marry with the applicant. There was a stiff resistance and denial by her parents and out of sheer and frustration, she has committed suicide.
(iii) There is no mark of injury over her person except the single ligature mark around her neck. The appellant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not be able to produce any document or messages which are obscene in nature which is the base of the present criminal prosecution against the applicant.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants-Shivam Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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 APPLICANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.
(iii) THE APPLICANTS 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 IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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 HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) THE APPLICANTS 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 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 Sumit S