Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30345 of 2019 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Faraz Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar, 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 – Nadeem with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.666 of 2018, under Sections 354, 354(A), 354(B), 506 I.P.C.
& Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Qutubsher, District Saharanpur.
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 FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 40 days with no plausible explanation which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The applicant is son-in-law of the informant. There was a matrimonial dispute due to which in order to teach a lesson to son-in-law, the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. 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, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2019. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019
Anand Sri./-