Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29497 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Misra,Chandra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 30.5.2019.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court towards annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the first bail application, which is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she herself has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own free will and further it is stated that applicant raped her. Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has admitted her love affair with the applicant and that they performed their marriage, reference in this regard is made to annexure-5 to this second bail application. There is major contradiction in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.PC. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2016. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Sanjeev Kumar Bind involved in Case Crime No.112 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5(J)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Kaundhiyara, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Dev/-