Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16974 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
As per office report dated 28.5.2019, notice has been served to opposite party no.2 but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to contest the matter, hence Court proceeds to hear the matter.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per FIR, the prosecutrix is stated to be aged about 15 years but as per age certificate issued by C.M.O, Varanasi, her age is stated to be 18 to 19 years. It is stated that there is neither first attended school certificate nor matriculation certificate of the prosecutrix regarding her age, hence in the absence of the same, the Court may consider the supplementary report of the victim and according to which, she is a major girl between 18 to 19 years. From the perusal of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears that she had voluntarily eloped with the applicant and was having affair with him and they also wanted to marry with each other but the applicant did not established any physical relationship with the prosecutrix though in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant had committed rape on her. She remained with the applicant for about three days but did not raise any alarm for her rescue. There was love affair between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 13.12.2018.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Ravi Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.598 of 2018, u/s 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhelupur, district Varanasi 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 dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Gaurav