Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14019 of 2019 Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant to the counter affidavit of the State, in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Pratap Singh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1007 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 368 I.P.C., Police Station-Etmaddaula, District-Agra, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 13th November, 2018, first information report has been lodged by Suman i.e. mother of the victim, namely, Lalitesh on 19th November, 2018 i.e. after six days from the date of incident for which no plausible explanation has been given. In the first information report, it has been alleged that on 13th November, 2018 at 09:00 a.m. (morning), when the informant and his son, namely, Deepu went out to work from their home, the daughter of the first informant i.e. victim was alone in the house. When the first informant, at 11:30, returned to her home, she saw that the victim was not at home. She made best effort to search her but she could not succeed. Thereafter when she went to her son Deepu then he told that he had seen the victim going along with neighbour Govind. Thereafter the first informant and her son reached the house of Govind but his father did not give satisfactory answer about the victim and Govind and has only said that Govind will come in evening but thereafter neither Govind has come nor his family members have given correct information. The first informant has suspected that the victim was enticed away by Govinda with the assistance of his father Bhoori Singh, his brother Vishal and his mother. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is uncle of Govind i.e. Phupha and he resides at Delhi. The applicant has not been named in the first information report and after 28 days from the date of incident, the first informant has given an information to the Police that she has been informed that the missing girl is seen at the place of applicant. Except for surveillance report, there is no evidence connecting the incident that the missing girl had gone to the place of the applicant along with Govind. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that after completion of the investigation and after submission of the Police Report submitted by the Police under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. upon which the court below has taken cognizance vide order dated 21st January, 2019, there is no need for retaining the applicant in jail. It has also been argued that the applicant is not the family members of main accused-Govind. He is only his Phupha i.e. a relative. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore, prays for bail of the present applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant 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. The applicant is in jail since 10th December, 2019.
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. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Sushil/-