Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15326 of 2018 Applicant :- Anuj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no. 39 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/16 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the applicants are not named in the FIR, which was registered after three days of the incident. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim she states that she has got married with Sintu and she has refused to get herself medically examined. As per ossification test done by the CMO, Saharanpur in which her age comes around 18 years. The 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. are in favour of Sintu with whom she has married. 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 applicants as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicants- Anuj and Vedpal 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. 39 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/16 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur 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 :- 25.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.