Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28458 of 2018 Applicant :- Aryan Sharma @ Vasu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Raunak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Aryan Sharma @ Vasu, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1006 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it transpires that an FIR dated 27.10.2017 was lodged by Sudhir Chauhan alleging therein that his daughter namely Saloni Chauhan aged about 16 years has been abducted by the applicant Aryan Sharma @ Vasu, who is doing B.Sc. in Vivekanand College, Bijnor. Subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, the investigation of the concerned case crime number commenced but it was discovered that the boy and the girl had gone to Bombay where they stayed together for 12 days. It is the case of the applicant that the girl insisted to marry the applicant but on account of the refusal of the applicant to marry at Bombay, the girl consumed some substance resulting in her death. Prior to the death of the deceased the victim had been admitted to a hospital at Bombay and she died while undergoing treatment at hospital. Consequently, the inquest and the post mortem of the deceased both were conducted at the hospital in Bombay. The cause of death could not be ascertained and, therefore, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. In spite of fact that the death of the victim had taken place on 13.11.2017, the Viscera report has not been furnished to the standing counsel till date. Learned AGA has passed on the report dated 25.11.2018 sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, on the basis of which, it is urged that the viscera report has not been received by the concerned police station till date.
Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Raunak Chaturvedi Submits that the applicant is a young boy, who is studying in B.Sc. IInd year. The applicant is in jail since 14.11.2017. As such she has undergone more than a period of one year of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It it next submitted that the girl was not forceably taken by the applicant but the girl herself accompanied the present applicant, and in view of the aforesaid distinguishing feature in the present case, no offence under Section 366 IPC can be said to be committed by the present applicant. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharastra and another 2018, Volume VI SCC 664 as well as the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Vardhrajan Vs. State of Madras AIR 965 Supreme Court, 942. It is thus urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is charge sheeted accused and the girl was minor. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no such evidence up to this stage, on the basis of which, it can be said that the present applicant has abetted in the commission of crime, by way of aid, conspiracy or instigation. The proof of the charge under Section 306 IPC, is subject to trial evidence. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Aryan Sharma @ Vasu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 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 :- 29.11.2018 Ravi Kant