Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27977 of 2019 Applicant :- Devi Singh @ Maharaj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, is taken on record.
Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 14 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376(Gha) IPC and section 6 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Khanna, District- Mahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the prosecution story has been culled out from the FIR lodged by one Halku s/o Sukdev on 06.02.2019 registered as case crime no. 14 of 2019, u/s 363, 366 IPC and section 8 POCSO Act. This FIR was got registered against Pradeep Kumar and Ram Kishor with the allegation that on 31.01.2019 his minor daughter Reena @ Sontoshi (17 years) was enticed away by Pradeep Kumar and while going, she has taken away Rs. 70,000/- from his coffers. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded on 15.02.2019 u/s 161 Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that she on her own joined the company of Pradeep Kumar and went to Kanpur by truck and from Kanpur to Wallabhgarh by train and solemnized marriage in a temple and remained there as husband and wife. She was put for medical examination and as per medical, her age comes around 18 years. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 18 days of the incident in which she has taken the name of the applicant for the first time that the applicant along with Lukshman, barged into her house though terrace and kidnapped her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that after the 18 days of lodging the FIR for the first time name of the applicant figure up. It is further contended that the co-accused Lukshman, Ram Kishor, and Pradeep Kumar were admitted on bail by this Court. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.05.2019 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The Court has perused the record and find that the facts of the case is true that the applicant is neither named in the FIR not his complicity found in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and for the first time the victim has taken the name of the applicant after 18 days of the incident in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which are indicative of the fact that she has been tutored by some vested interest, who prompted her to involve the applicant in this offence. Her conduct clearly shows that she was in consensual relationship with the co-accused Pradeep Kumar that is why, she has taken Rs. 70,000/- from her home.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Devi Singh @ Maharaj Singh, 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 :- 26.8.2019 Nisha