Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29355 of 2019 Applicant :- Santosh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suman Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mrs. Suman Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants- Santosh and Narsingh Sonkar with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2019, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that for the alleged incident dated 3rd April, 2019, the present first information report has been lodged on 21st May, 2019 by Hirawati Devi i.e. mother of the victim, namely, Anita Sonkar against Baccha Sonkar and Narsingh (applicant no.2) i.e. after one month and eighteen days from the date of alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the first information report, it has been alleged that on 20th January, 2019 at 08:00 p.m. the co-accused Baccha Sonkar on the promise to marry, persuaded the victim, who is stated to be 20 years old, and sexually assaulted her due to which she became pregnant and now she had a baby of three months. It has further been alleged that applicant no.2 also assisted the co-accused Baccha Sonkar in all his negative activities. He has also assisted the co-accused Baccha Sonkar in the incident dated 20th January, 2019 in which she was sexually assaulted by co-accused Baccha Sonkar. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are huge variations in the both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In both the statements the victim has introduced a third name i.e. Santosh (applicant no.1) with the allegation that he has also assisted the co-accused Baccha Sonkar in enticing away the victim as well as in sexual assaulting her by the co-accused Bachha Sonkar. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that seeing the huge variations in the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 366 I.P.C. only against the accused persons, whereas as the first information report has been lodged under Sections 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C., which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. So far as the allegations of enticing away the victim as well as sexually assaulting her are concerned, the same have been made against Baccha Sonkar and being the relatives of the co- accused Baccha Sonkar, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are innocent. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 19th June, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 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 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 their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Sushil/-