Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Pankaj Sharma vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|25 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29580 of 2019 Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Grijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 126 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mathura, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Jeth of the victim. He is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in this case. The FIR of this case was registered by the victim with the allegation that the applicant and other entire family members were demanding dowry and the applicant, who is real brother of her husband Deepak Sharma, entered into her bedroom, and has committed rape upon her and when she talked about the incident, her mother in-law, Nanad and her husband have committed marpeet with her, in which 9 persons were made accused. As per previous practice in the society, all possible names related to the husband mentioned in the the FIR. The FIR of this case was lodged after 7 months without given any explanation. Not only this, she refused to medical examination to ascertain the allegation of rape upon her. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 21.06.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA, the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and her refusal to get her medical examination and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Pankaj Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 126 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mathura, with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019/v.k.updh.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Pankaj Sharma vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
25 July, 2019
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Grijesh Kumar