Allahabad High Court
Haseeb vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 30 September, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1431 of 2019 Appellant :- Haseeb Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned order dated 4.8.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1407 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 1335 of 2017, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC, 3/4 POCO Act and section 3(2) V SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao. The Presiding Officer has rejected the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 4.8.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the averments made in the FIR are wholly false and frivolous. He has pointed out the variance of the averments made in the FIR. The statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. which shows huge variance in the factual averments alleged. He has also relied upon the statement of witness Naina who has made statement against the appellant which is complete variation of the earlier two statements. It was further argued that the variance of the statements are fatal. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. There is nothing on record to suggest that if the appellant be enlarged on bail would affect the trial or influence the witness. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P., 2018 3 SCC 22.
Considering the submissions made at the bar, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let appellant-Haseeb, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.
(ii) The appellant 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 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 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 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.
Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Puspendra