Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23111 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhole @ Suresh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Bhole @ Suresh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.369 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 323 I.P.C. & Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is argued that though in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. specific role of commission of rape has been assigned to the applicant, but the victim has been examined before the trial court as P.W.1 on 02.01.2019 in which she has denied allegations against the applicant. As per medical report, the age of the victim is 16-17 years. Co-accused Ravindra has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2299 of 2019. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that "it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Anand Sri./-