Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28798 of 2019 Applicant :- Rahul @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., ,Anand Prakash Dubey
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the learned AGA, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Nitin Sharma learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the private opposite party, 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 FIR was got registered on 20.03.2019 by Satendra Kumar against the present applicant- Rahul Chaudhary alias Sonu and another- Sumit under sections 452, 307, 363, 323, 504, 506, 507, 354, 376 and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut for the alleged occurrence dated 13.03.2019 during midnight. Text of the FIR in nutshell reveals that minor daughter of the informant was abducted by the applicant and the named co-accused on pistol point, before the family members of the informant, from his house. Eventually the alleged abducted girl was recovered on 13.03.2019 but the FIR of the alleged incident came into existence on 20.03.2019. He contended that it is surprising that after 13 days of the alleged incident, i.e. 02.04.2019, the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she made revelation of the fact that she was the subject matter of sexual assault by the accused but the medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape upon the victim and her hymen was found torn and strangely age of the victim was not ascertained by any ossification test, which is essential for confirmation of age for any rape victim. The applicant is in jail since 03.05.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned counsel for the private opposite party submits that it is a serious case where a minor girl of 13 years, the present victim was subjected to sexual assaultand 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 the 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 Rahul alias Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2019, under sections 452, 307, 363, 323, 504, 506, 507, 354, 376 and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut 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 :- 21.8.2019 shailesh