Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29384 of 2018
Applicant :- Rashid
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Gupta,, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to F.I.R. the applicant has tried to outrage the modesty of minor daughter of complainant. He next submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He also submitted that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. Further submission is that there is contradiction in the statements recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.PC. (Annexure nos. 4 & 5). Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 21.6.2018, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant Rashid, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1100 of 2018, under Sections 354A I.P.C. and Section 9/10 POCSO Act, P.S. Loni, district-Ghaziabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. one lac (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
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.
Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Faridul