Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1636 of 2020 Appellant :- Shankar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari,Vinay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶3

Ref: Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2 of 2020

¶4

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffarnagar arising out of Case Crime No.1052 of 2019 registered under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

As per F.I.R. version, the victim was enticed away by the applicant; victim on 03.11.2019 ran away along with the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; in fact, as per statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. victim was in love and affection with the applicant and she went with the applicant of her own sweet will; the victim herself called the applicant. Statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not made out any case against the applicant and are not corroborating the facts narrated in the F.I.R. as well as medical report; the applicant and victim lived in Meerut for 3-4 days; as per medico legal report, the victim is aged about 17 years. The appellant is in jail since 06.11.2019 having in criminal history and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the bail prayer of the appellant and submitted that victim is minor and as the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order

¶11

carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and finally disposed of, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let appellant, Shankar , involved in Case Crime No.1052 of 2019 registered under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions;

¶15

The applicant-appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

However, keeping Covid-19/ Lock down, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.

¶21

Needless to note that observation, if any, has come in this order, that is only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and learned Trial Judge will not be influenced in any manner while deciding the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.10.2020 Nitin Verma

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anoop Singh Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Phool Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naveen Jaiswal Vs State of Up and Another

Anil Kumar Viswakarma Vs State of U.P.