Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26308 of 2018 Applicant :- Raju @ Rajiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan,Nitin Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in S.T. No.93 of 2016, Case Crime No. 181 of 2015, under Sections 376(D)/323 I.P.C., P.S.- Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R., he was exonerated during the investigation. After the submission of chargesheet, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she nominated the applicant as an accused. During the trial, he was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C., on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, father of the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix is yet to be recorded. He next submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record indicating at the applicant's complicity in the commission of offence for which he is now being tried. He lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 17.5.2018, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Raju @ Rajiv Kumar 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 S.T. No.93 of 2016, Case Crime No. 181 of 2015, under Sections 376(D)/323 I.P.C., P.S.- Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the informant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Shalini