Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23965 of 2019 Applicant :- Neeraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bratendra Singh,Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that according to the prosecution the alleged incident has taken place 24.09.2018 at 10.09 hours by Sudesh, father of alleged victim girl, aged about 17 years, FIR of which has been lodged on 26.09.2016 at 13.20 hours. Text of the FIR reveals that the alleged victim on the fateful day at about 10.00 A.M. went to ease herself along with village folks namely, Ruby and Smt. Vimla in the agricultural field, en route Ruby on a mobile telephonic call, went with an unknown boy. It has been further narrated therein that the alleged victim also used to chat with that unknown boy on different mobile set phone numbers, at the instance of Ruby. A shocking revelation has also been made therein that while leaving the house for easing herself, the alleged victim girl took away certain valuable ornaments and Rs. 45,000/- cash. The informant apprehended that his daughter may be looted and murdered by her accomplices at the end of the aforesaid FIR. The alleged victim was recovered by the police from Kaithla crossing on 21.10.2018. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2018 the victim girl conceded that she is about 18 years of age and Class VIII pass and turning the table of the text of the FIR, she stated therein that she was eloped by Ruby and Smt. Vimla on the pretext of natural call, en route Pushpendra Yadav and Neeraj Yadav, to whom she had acquaintance prior to the incident also, carried her away in a four wheeler to Betia, where they committed raped upon her, thereafter two other persons, namely Raj Kishore Chauhan and Chhotey Chauhan slid her off to Majhola from Betia and ravished her modesty. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that according to the alleged victim she was in captivation of the aforesaid four accused persons for almost 21 days altogether, during which period strangely she made no resistance/hue or cry/raised alarm for her rescue and eventually she was recovered by the police on 21.10.2018 from the aforesaid place and was handed over in the custody of her parents on 23.10.2018. Considering her statements given under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the entire prosecution case seems to be unswallowable. He next urged that the applicant is in jail since 11.12.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned AGA 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 that the co-accused Raj Kishore has already been bailed out vide order dated 27.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14910 of 2019 by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the highly suspicious conduct of the alleged victim girl, 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, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Neeraj Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Aliganj, District Etah 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 :- 11.6.2019 shailesh