Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42636 of 2015 Applicant :- David Johnson Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Misra,Jitendra Kumar Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of seven months against the applicant and four other persons, alleging therein that the applicant and his son have committed rape with her two minor daughters, who were domestic helpers in the house of the applicant. He next submitted that as per medical opinion the prosecutrix Gulshan is aged about 16 years and prosecutrix Rashida is aged about 19 years respectively. He further submitted that prosecutrix Gulshan in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-5) has made allegation of rape against the applicant as well as his son Joy Johnson. The medical report of the prosecutrix, Gulshan does not corroborate the allegation of rape. No marks of violence or injury were found on her body by the doctor who had examined her. On the other hand the prosecutrix Rashida has totally disowned the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. He also submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix is a sex worker and she is blackmailing the applicant and for the said purpose the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 20.7.2015 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant-David Johnson involved in Case Crime No. 312 of 2014, under Sections 366A, 376D I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, district-Saharanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. two lac with two sureties (one should of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the trial court.
The applicant is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the trial court for its compliance.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Faridul