Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sandeep vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 September, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28794 of 2019 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard 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. 308/2018, under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Dannahar, District- Mainpuri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the FIR was got registered by father of the victim on 12.11.2018 u/s 506, 363 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act with the allegation that the applicant has enticed away his minor daughter. After recovery, the girl was put for recording her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that she is resident of Eta and when she went to attend the call of nature in the morning, the applicant has made her unconscious and taken her to some unknown destination. She remained in the company of applicant for 8 good days. It is further submitted that the story narrated by the victim that she was confined in the room for 8 good days and during this period she could not get any opportunity to raise any alarm or seek help from others. The story setup by the victim palpably sounds unreasonable. She further submits that the applicant used to ravish her modesty 2-3 times in a day but her medical belies this story narrated by her. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.02.2019 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 applicant.
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 applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
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 :- 30.9.2019 Nisha
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sandeep vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 September, 2019
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Abhijit Mishra