Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15638 of 2018 Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naseer Ahmad,Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 228 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Barnahal, District Mainpuri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegation the applicant got the tender relationship with the victim. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation was swelled and the role of commission of rape was attributed to co-accused Sunil and Saroj. In paragraph 17 of the affidavit learned counsel for the applicant has stated that Sunil and Saroj were exonerated from the allegation of rape from the case. There is no allegation of rape by the applicant in either in FIR or 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. statements. As per the medical opinion her age comes around 17 years. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 02.02.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view there is no allegation of rape qua the present applicant, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Ankit be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 228 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Barnahal, District Mainpuri with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.