Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5005 of 2009
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5017 OF 2009.
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5646 OF 2009
Petitioner :- Lala @ Shakir & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Mukhtar Alam
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
These are three criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 5005 of
2009, Criminal Appeal No. 5017 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.
5646 of 2009.
Sri D.K. Dewan appeared to press bail application moved on
behalf of Smt. Shahjahan,w/o late Sh. Azisur Rahman, Javed s/o
Gaffar and Smt. Gulshan w/o Javed in Criminal Appeal No.5017
of 2009.
Sri S.K. Mishra appeared to press bail application moved on behalf
of Preetam s/o Syoraj in Criminal Appeal No. 5646 of 2009.
Sri Mukhtar Alam appeared to press bail application moved on
behalf of Lala @ Shakir s/o Abdul Salam and Ayyub s/o Abdul
Hameed in Criminal Appeal No. 5005 of 2009.
Learned Government side opposed the prayer for bail of all the
appellants named in these three appeals.
All the appellants were prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Sections so mentioned in the judgment and they are to serve
out the sentence so provided.
Appellant Preetam of Criminal Appeal No. 5646 of 2009 has been
awarded life imprisonment and so far remaining five appellants
involved in two criminal appeals were given ten years sentence as
will appear from the judgment.
Argument of all the three learned advocates from the side of the
appellants more or less is similar and they all placed the facts and
judgments jointly and thus instead of noticing their arguments
separately it will be convenient that a brief of their submissions is
noticed.
Submission is that in respect of disappearance of girl which has
taken place on 17.06.2004 the information was given on
20.07.2004 i.e. after about 33 days and recovery is said to have
taken place on 08.08.2004 and it is after 19 days, statement under
Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Submission is that in the First Information Report also the sole
accused is named as Kasim and after the recovery also the girl
named that accused Kasim to be responsible for all the incident.
Although from time to time and place to place other accused
persons have intervened.
Submission is that so far Kasim is concerned, he can be said to be
assigned main role but so far as the appellants are concerned, their
case may be distinguished for various reasons.
Submission is that girl was taken initially by Kasim then by
intervention of 2 accused and by addition of other accused, she
was kept/taken at least to four places by use of tempo and the
government bus but at no point of time there was any hue and cry
and no alarm was there and thus it is highly improbable that for
such a long period she was detained and was taken by accused
persons and she traveled many places for commission of the
offence as submitted.
Submission is that it has come in the evidence that girl was taken
by the accused persons some time by tempo and at some time by
government bus to the grove, to the house of one co-accused and
and in respect of the factum of recovery also there appears to be a
contradictory version. Appellants were on bail during trial and
they did not misuse the same. Appeal is not so old and thus it will
take long time in its disposal and thus the appellants are entitled to
be enlarged on bail.
Learned Additional Government Advocate to oppose the aforesaid
submits that it is a case where according to the statement of the
doctor the girl is found to be aged about 18 years and although
Kasim is main accused but an intervening stages appellants also
contributed in commission of the offence and thus after recovery
of the girl there is statement and the name of all the accused came
and the Trial Judge by believing the prosecution version convicted
all the appellants, it is not a case for bail.
There is no dispute about the fact that the age of the girl is 18 years
(according to the statement of the doctor). There is also no dispute
about the fact that disappearance of the girl was on 17.06.2004 of
which the information/report was given on 20.07.2004 and it is
thereafter she is said to have been recovered on 08.08.2004. There
is no dispute of the fact, which is clear from the evidence/record
that for this long period she traveled four different places by tempo
and by government bus and she raised no alarm and no steps to get
himself freed.
Submission that the manner in which the incident is said to have
taken place and the accused were involved from time to time is to
be taken note. During trial appellants were on bail and they did not
misuse the same.
The lady who is one of the accused appellant claims to be having
children and other accused persons claims that they have no
concerned with Kasim.
Appeal is of the year 2009 and thus it will take long time in its
disposal. On the facts and totality of the circumstances this Court
is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, let the appellants Smt. Shahjahan, Javed, Smt.
Gulshan, Preetam, Lala @ Shakir and Ayyub involved in S.T. No.
622 of 2005, be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned.
Realization of fine in respect to above appellants to the extent of
fifty percent shall remain stayed. Balance amount of fine shall be
deposited within a month. The release order shall be sent after
deposit of fine.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
pp