Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Gajveer Chaudhary @ Gajju @ Jeetu vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|03 June, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23103 of 2019 Applicant :- Gajveer Chaudhary @ Gajju @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Gajveer Chaudhary @ Gajju @ Jeetu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 657 of 2017, under Sections 365, 376, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the medical examination report, the victim is 19 years old and she is actually a fully grown up major girl. For the alleged incident dated 30th September, 2017, the first information report has been lodged on 13th October, 2017 by Praveeta Sharma i.e. mother of the victim, namely, Gunjan, i.e. after 13 days from the date of incident, for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the first information report it has been alleged that on 30th September, 2017 at 02:30 a.m. (night), when the first informant along with her daughter i.e. victim, the applicant knocked the door of first informant and when the first informant opened the door the applicant entered into her house and after closing the mouth of the victim, he lifted her in his lap and other co-accused Vedveer threatened them by showing the country-made pistol and thereafter the applicant took the victim forcefully by a car. The applicant had also taken the suitcase, wherein some money was kept along with the victim. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that on 30th September, 2017 the applicant and his father i.e. other co-accused entered into her house and took her away forcefully along with them by a car and the applicant after threatening and beating her to kill her brothers sexually assaulted her and after getting a chance, she escaped from the custody of the applicant from Bulandshahr, where she was kept by the applicant and returned to her house. The real fact is that the victim knew the applicant and she went along with the applicant on her own free will. She travelled about hundred kilometers with the applicant. It is impossible to believe that a grown up major girl can be taken in most crowded places against her will for such a long distance. There is no evidence that she ever protested or resisted the act of the applicant or made any complaint all this while. The victim was forced to give some incriminating statements against the applicant under coercive pressures. Overall circumstances of the case are strongly suggestive of consensual relationship between two. The victim as well as the first informant have refused to get herself internal medically examined. As per the medical examination report, no external injury was found on the body of the victim. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant 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. The applicant is in jail since 19th February, 2018. As such the applicant has undergone more than one year and three months of incarceration.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and 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 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Sushil/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gajveer Chaudhary @ Gajju @ Jeetu vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
03 June, 2019
Judges
  • S Manju Rani Chauhan
Advocates
  • Garun Pal Singh