Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel has filed counter affidavit along with his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the court, which has been filed by the learned counsel for the Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant ? Jeeshan @ Shanu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.271 of 2020, under Sections 452, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sherkot, District- Bijnor.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the victim herself alleging therein that the applicant had established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marrying her but he has refused to marry. The statement of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which she has supported the FIR version. It is next argued that during course of trial, the statement of victim was recorded as P.W.-1, wherein, she has denied all the allegations against the applicant and has turned hostile. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 29.09.2020. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 JK Yadav