HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 7757 of 2019
Appellant :- Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Dev Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kranti Kiran Pandey
Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard Shri Dev Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “S.C./SectionS.T. Act”) has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chitrakoot in Bail Application No.1128 of 2019 (Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime no.784 of 2018, under Sections 354, Section504, Section506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5)A of SC/SectionST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Karvi, District-Chitrakoot.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the victim lady is a journalist belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community and she lodged an F.I.R. on 07.12.2019 for the incident said to have taken place on 14.10.2018. Submission is that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the same has not been adequately explained. The F.I.R. was lodged with the allegations of misbehaving with the opposite party no.2 by the accused-appellant. Submission is that in earlier version of the F.I.R. the allegation of misbehaving was levelled against the appellant but later on when she was examined u/s 161 and 164 SectionCr.P.C., she has drastically changed her version and has made the allegation of committing rape upon her. Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure No.7, wherein the statement of Doctor is self revealing the conduct of the victim, in which the doctor has categorically stated that the victim has insisted to convert the case from Section 354 I.P.C. to Section 376 I.P.C. This is obnoxious state of affair whereby the victim is itself choosing the section in which the appellant has to be prosecuted without having any medical examination in that regard. The appellant is in jail since 28.11.2019.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.
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, the period of detention already undergone and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant-Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT 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 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 SectionIPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 SectionIPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chitrakoot, is hereby set aside.
The concerned Trial Judge is at the liberty to take suitable punitive action against the opposite party no.2 who is using her caste and profession of journalism just to choose more severe sections of SectionI.P.C. against the appellant. This is not at all acceptable where she is changing and shifting her stand to paste more serious sections of SectionI.P.C. upon the appellant with a particular design and motive. The criminal prosecution would not dance on the tune of the prosecutrix, ignoring her ever changing stand. The trial judge must tackle such type of obnoxious situation with iron hand within two months.
Order Date :- 3.1.2020
M. Kumar
