Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32922 of 2021 Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Pravesh Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.15 of 2021, under Section 376 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Highway, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation of his indulging in forceful physical relationship with the prosecutrix/first informant and there is a false promise to marry but the said allegations are false and concocted on own showing of the first informant in the FIR. She went with the applicant and lived with him for about 2 to 3 months in a rented accommodation wherein physical relationship was established between them. It is further argued that the prosecutrix is major aged about 20 years and is also a married lady. The prosecutrix lived with the applicant for about 3 months out of her own sweet-will and established physical relationship with consent. The allegation against the applicant is that he had taken some objectionable photos of the prosecutrix, the said allegation is false and concocted as during investigation no such photographs have been recovered by the Investigating Officer. The applicant is also a married man having three children. There was some relationship between the parties with consent between them. The applicant is not involved in the present case and has been falsely implicated just to blackmail him. The prosecutrix has refused her medical examination when she was produced before the doctor. The FIR has been registered with an unexplained delay of about nine months from the date of her leaving the house where she was living with the applicant and the same is without any plausible explanation. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.06.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that after lodging of the FIR on 4.1.2021, the prosecutrix was assaulted by the applicant for which Non- cognizable Report was registered on 10.02.2021 by her under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC wherein she was medically examined and was found to have received injuries on her person. The applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him of establishing physical relationship with the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage in spite of the fact that he was a married man and then refused marriage with her as such the prayer for bail be rejected.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a married lady. She lived with the applicant for about 2 to 3 months in a rented accommodation out of her own sweet-will and established physical relationship with consent. Subsequently some dispute with regards to marriage cropped up between them.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Pravesh Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties will be of family members) 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.
(v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Gaurav