Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20357 of 2018 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no. 418 of 2015, under Sections 363, 342, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bela, District- Auraiya are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of their application for bail submits that the applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR but during investigation the victim has not attributed any role to the applicants. In her statement recorded after 19 days u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she has purposely dragged the name of three persons including the present applicants and consequently, taken into account the other witnesses and the entirety of the case, the Investigation Officer of this case has dropped the name of the applicants from the charge sheet. When the case was put to trial, PW-1 in her statement again taken the name of the applicants and in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C. the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Auraiya on 16.01.2018 has summoned the applicants.
Thus, keeping in view that the applicants have been summoned in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C. and have not been attributed any role in prosecutrix's statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the main accused persons is Ram Vilas @ Bhure who has already been enlarged on bail by another co- ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 06.06.2016 and the case of the present applicants are stand on the better footing than the case of the main accused Ram Vilas @ Bhure. It is next submitted that the applicants are in jail since 11.04.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Keeping in view 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 applicants have made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep And Ram Veer Singh, 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 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 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 APPLICANTS MISUSES 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 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 wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their 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 :- 30.5.2018 Nisha