Criminal appeal filed challenging an order rejecting bail. The court, without deciding merits, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of appellants on personal bond and sureties.
Impugned order set aside; appellants released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3217 of 2019
Appellant :- Shadan Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abdul Mazeed Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellants in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 20.2.2019 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Pilibhit, arising out of Case Crime no. 20 of 2019, under Sections 366, 328, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilsanda, district-Pilibhit, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per first information report the victim is 17 years of age. The first information report was lodged against unknown person on 27.1.2019. He next submitted that the appellant was not named in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that two boys Shadan and Rehman Khan had kidnapped her on 27.1.2019 at about 2:30 P.M. and detained her in a room and on the same day at about 10:11 P.M. the victim was recovered by the police. But she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Named Infan in place of Rehman Khan and changed the version and stated that Shadan had hold her hands and misbehaved with her. Accused kept a handkerchief on her nose as a result of which she became semi unconscious. Thereafter both Shadan and Irfan picked up her on the motorcycle and gone to several places. He also submitted that these facts mentioned in the statements of the victim having no mention in the first information report. He further submitted that she was a consenting party, who had travelled with the appellants to several places and was having ample opportunities to raise alarm or cries for help but she did not do so. He lastly submitted that the appellants, who are in jail since 15.2.2019 and have no criminal antecedents to their credit are entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 20.2.2019 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Pilibhit is hereby set aside.
Let the appellants, Shadan Khan and Rahman Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 9.5.2019 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal seeking bail allowed despite the involvement of the appellant in the alleged incident.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order should be set aside and the appellants released on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shadan Khan
Shaman Khan
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
