HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 915 of 2018
Appellant :- Lavkush Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Anubhav Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
In Ref:- C.M.A. No. 63211 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, pertaining to the prayer of bail.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant/Lavkush Maurya to set-aside the judgment and order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C., IInd, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 1191 of 2015 (SectionState vs. Lavkush and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2015, under Sections 376, Section354, Section506 IPC and Section 4/Section6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Police Station Chinhat, District- Lucknow convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, under Section 354 IPC for 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under Section 506 IPC for 1 year rigorous imprisonment, during pendency of Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the prayer of bail submits that incident has taken place on 15.06.2015 in the car of one Rinku, DW-2. Allegedly the prosecutrix has been called by the appellant and when she reached at Saraswati Dental College, she was forcibly pulled inside the car of Rinku and was rapped. The video of the incident was also made by the co-accused Kaushal and the video recording was shown to DW1 (Ram Suchit). It is next contended that Ram Suchit has denied to have seen any such video. The investigating officer has not recovered any such video neither any material relating to that has been collected. The medical age of the prosecutrix has been assessed to be 18 years. The doctor, DW-4 has stated that no external or internal injury has been found on the person of the prosecutrix therefore, no opinion about the rape can be given. The applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 03.07.2015. Rinku has also denied that prosecution story.
It is next submitted that, the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and there is no instance of misusing the liberty so granted. There is no likelihood that the appellants after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, so granted by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
Let the appellant/Lavkush Maurya involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 6.8.2019