Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24706 of 2017 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Anupam Kumar,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by Mr. Anupam Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard Shri Anupam Kumar and Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 61 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mandawar, district Bijnor, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged on 05.02.2017 by Smt. Haseena, the mother of the prosecutrix, under sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against the four named accused persons for the alleged enticing of her daughter. As per the allegation in the FIR, the applicant Salman is the main accused. The prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, was enticed away while going to Madarsa. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix was enticed away by the applicant Salman after overpowering her and in the state of intoxication has taken her to Mumbai, where her modesty was outraged by force by the applicant. The girl was eventually recovered on 05.02.2017. She remained in the company of the applicant for five good days without any resistance or alarm. Thereafter in the custody of her mother, she has given her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has given a different picture altogether. As per the medical report, her age is about 16 years and there is no injury over her private part or external body. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she further stated that she was got married with the applicant Salman.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the fact that the girl is aged about 16 years and there is no mark of injury on her person and she was remained in the company of applicant without any resistance and 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, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant, Salman, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at 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 :- 27.7.2018 Sazia