Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32223 of 2019 Applicant :- Satyam Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Satyam Pandey seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nigohi, District Sahahjahanpur, during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
In respect of an incident which occurred on 23.3.2019, one Rahis Pal Singh, father of the prosecutrix lodged an F.I.R. dated 23.3.2019, which was registered as Case Crime No. 117 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nigohi, District Sahahjahanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R.four persons namely Satyam Pandey, the applicant herein, Aman, Monu Shukla and Sridhar Pandey were nominated as the named accused.
Subsequent to the aforesaid F.I.R., the prosecutrix was recovered. Thereafter, her statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 8.4.2019 followed by her statement under section 164 164 Cr. P. C. on 10.4.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. has herself stated that her date of birth is 5.6.2002, as such on the date of occurrence, the age of prosecutrix was more than 16 years. Consequently, the mandatory provisions of Section 439 Cr. P.C. are not required to be complied with in the present case.
As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the applicant is guilty of taking away the prosecutrix even though she is not married to him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The applicant is innocent. He is in jail since 15.5.2019. It is then contended that the prosecutrix is a consenting party as is evident from her statement under section 161 as well as 164 Cr. P. C., as such the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State, complicity of the accused, nature of the offence and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Satyam Pandey 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..
(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 HSM