Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 45339 of 2016 Applicant :- Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Notice was served upon accused opposite party-2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has submitted report dated 30.01.2017 and has informed that as per police report, no such person is found residing at the given address and is not traceable i.e. absconding.
3. This is an application seeking cancellation of bail of opposite party-2 namely, Raju @ Sant Ram granted by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Allahabad vide order dated 20.06.2016 passed in Bail Application No. 1543 of 2016 in Case Crime No. 119 of 2016, under Sections 370, 373 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that opposite party-2 is misusing the terms of bail. It is also pointed out that bail granted in the similar circumstances to several co-accused have been cancelled by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2017 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8671 of 2016 (Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan vs. Satyabhama and Another) and other connected appeals. Judgment of Supreme Court reads as under :
"Leave granted.
Appellant has questioned the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the various bail applications alleging release of the accused persons on bail. The accused persons have been charged with commission of offence under Section 370 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'). Under Section 6 of the Act punishment is up to life imprisonment and minimum sentence is of seven years. The facts indicate that the accused persons have been arrested in the aforesaid crime for human trafficking and forcing minor girls into prostitution. As many as 41 minor girls were rescued during the raid which was conduced on 1st May, 2016 and all were kept confined and were subjected to torture and harassment. It was also alleged that growth hormones were given to Laxmi, a nine year old girl for purpose of prostitution and similar treatment was given to others. They were forced and were actually put into prostitution. They were kept hungry, intoxicated with drugs etc. There is a gang with is operating to force minor girls into prostitution and involved in human trafficking.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders passed by the High Court and considering the seriousness of the allegations, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have granted the bail in a mechanical manner without even noticing the facts of the case. The approach of the Court cannot be said to be proper at all while enlarging the accused persons on bail in such a serious crime. In the circumstances without commenting on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders passed of grant of bail to the accused persons.
It is stated that in the trial court charges have been framed. In the circumstances, as it appears large number of witnesses have to be examined. It is stated that 15th February, 2017 is the date for recording of evidence of the witnesses. We direct the prosecution as well as the trial court to examine the material witnesses first and also direct the trial court to record the evidence at least for ten days in one month. In the aforesaid manner, let the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Suffice it to observe that nothing mentioned in the order shall be deemed to be an expression on merits of the case.
In case there is an undue delay in the trial for no fault on their part, it would be open to the accused persons to approach this Court. It is assured that the accused persons and their counsel will cooperate with the trial.
Appeals are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside."
(emphasis added)
5. In the present case, accused-opposite party-2 has not filed any reply disputing the allegation made in application seeking cancellation of bail.
6. Considering the facts stated in present application and also the judgment of Supreme Court, I am satisfied that bail granted to opposite party-2 ought to be cancelled and as reported, he is not traceable.
7. Application is allowed. Bail granted to accused-opposite party- 2 is hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender by 31st October, 2019 failing which Police concerned shall take action to immediately arrest and lodge him in jail.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Siddhant Sahu