Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26796 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Satsangi and Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29118 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Satsangi and Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28949 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Satsangi
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh and Sri Abhishek Tripathi learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no. 396 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there are three connected bail applications on behalf of the applicants Rajesh, Dharmendra and Sanjeev.
Rajesh and Dharmendra are real brothers out of which Rajesh is married man. All the three persons were implicated by the father of the victim in a case under Section 363 and 366 IPC. The alleged incident said to have been taken place on 22.05.2018 of which the FIR of the incident was registered on 01.07.2018. Though the girl was came back on 29.06.2018 and when she has narrated the entire story, then only this FIR came into existence on 01.07.2018. There is no allegation of rape in the FIR. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim for the first time she has added the angle of ravishing her by all the three applicants. During this period for almost one month she was residing at Ms. Rekha who is sister of Rajesh and Dharmendra, it is highly unlikely that two brothers would keep a girl at her sister's place who herself is a married woman residing peacefully with her family members and how she would permit them to do this job of debauchery with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the age of the girl is 14 years but story and other attending circumstances of the case narrated by the prosecution is not at all confidence generating. He lastly submitted that the applicants are in jail since 04.07.2018, 25.07.2018 and 21.08.2018 respectively is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA and Sri Pankaj Santsangi vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants with regard to the mode of committing the offence, inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, and the venue of committing the offence, as well as learned AGA 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 applicants- Rajesh, Dharmendra and Sanjeev be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 396 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS 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 THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 THEM 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/applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his/her/them 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 :- 26.9.2019 Abhishek Sri.