HITENDRASINH @ HAKO @ JITU @ KADI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is filed against an order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal dated 10.05.2019 rejecting the bail application of the present appellant.

(2.) The case in brief, as narrated in the FIR filed by respondent no.2 herein, is that the appellant alongwith other two accused entered into the house of the first informant with an intent to commit an offence, who is introduced by first accused - Mahendra @ Mediya to the first informant by name, and therefore, the first informant has named him in the FIR. It is the case of the first informant that all the three accused had knives in their hands and in presence of her children they intended to have sexual relation with the daughter of the first informant, and therefore, first informant sent her upstairs in the house alongwith other children and her sister-in-law. It is further the case of the prosecution that all the three accused followed them upstairs and she also followed all the three. Inside the room, all the three, at knife point, compelled her daughter to have sexual relation but first informant intervened and tried to rescue her, to which all the accused got enraged and started abusing her caste and subsequent thereto, she was brought down by all the three accused and one after another, against her wish and will committed rape over her at knife point.

(3.) After filing of this Appeal, it was admitted on 20.05.2019 and notice of admission was issued to be served upon respondent no.2 making it returnable on 13.06.2019. However, matter could not reach for hearing on 13.06.2019, and therefore, it was kept on 19.06.2019. On 19.06.2019, Investigating Officer was present in the Court and it was declared that respondent no.2 herein - first informant was not found at the given address, and therefore, notice of admission of this Appeal could not be served to her, and therefore, fresh notice of admission came to be issued to be served through the Investigating Officer making it returnable on 27.06.2019. Again, on 27.06.2019, fresh notice of rule was issued on respondent no.2 making it returnable on 04.07.2019, as respondent no.2 was not found at the given address and as per the statement of her daughter she pleaded ignorance in respect of whereabouts of her mother. In short, though attempts were made to serve notice of admission upon respondent no.2, it failed, and therefore, on 27.06.2019, the Investigating Officer was directed to make attempts to serve her in accordance with law, more particularly Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.