Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33021 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Despite of the notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.167 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim against the applicant on 06.06.2018 for the alleged act of enticement of his daughter said to have been taken place on 20.05.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she submits that (i) she, on her volition and accord, has joined the company of the applicant. There was no force or pressure upon her ; (ii) that she was never sexually exploited by the applicant ; (iii) that she remained in the company of the applicant about one year in Kerala without any resistance or alarm. Her conduct clearly shows that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and has pointed out that as per medical, the age of the victim is 15 years but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she submits that she on her own, joined the company of the applicant and she has given clean chit to the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Dharmendra, involved in case crime no.167 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sevrahi, District-Kushinagar be released on bail 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 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 COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., 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, 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 HIM 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 bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019/Sumit S