Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14496 of 2019 Applicant :- Neetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vivek Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Neetu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 381 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 370, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Cholapur, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged by father of the victim against two accused persons after a delay of about 20 days on 18.05.2017, but no plausible explanation has been given for the same. The name of applicant surfaced in the recovery memo. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the co-accused- Karan, who is husband of the applicant and other accused persons have taken away the victim and allegation of sexual assault has been assigned to the number of persons including the husband of the applicant. No role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next submitted that the story of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not corroborate with the medical evidence as no external or internal injury was found on her body. The only role of the applicant was of helping her husband to keep the victim in her house. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed the issue of period of detention of the applicant i.e. 25th October, 2017, who has undergone more than one year and six months of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant behind the bars. As per medical report of the victim, she is aged about 19-20 years. The applicant is lady and she is languishing in jail since 25.10.2017. The criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph no.16 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Per contra learned A.G.A. 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 deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 JK Yadav