Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31939 of 2019 Applicant :- Munesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare 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.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.21 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5Ka, 3(1)Da SC/ST Act and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Khanna, District-Mahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against unknown person under Section 363, 366, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act on 26.02.2019 for the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 17.02.2019. As per High School Certificate, she is aged about 17 years and 6 months and as per medical report, she is aged about 18 years. It is alleged that the victim is legally wedded wife of the applicant. Both of them got their marriage registered on 18.02.2019 and the Marriage Certificate is annexed as Annexure-6 to the application. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 is self-revealing that she remained in the company of the applicant for four months as husband and wife. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2019.
Learned A.G.A 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.
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 case for bail.
2019, under Section 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5Ka, 3(1)Da SC/ST Act and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Khanna, District-Mahoba 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