Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21477 of 2019 Applicant :- Sonu @ Sonpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Syed Ayyaz Akhatar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Sonu @ Sonpal with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Dholna, District-Kasganj, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 1st June, 2017, the first information report has been lodged by Jai Singh i.e. father of the victim, namely, Harpyari on 11th June, 2017 i.e. after ten days from the date of 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 when he was working at his field and the victim was alone, she was enticed away by one Madhav with the help of Jai Devi. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the co-accused Jai Devi took the victim to the bus stand where other co-accused Madhav and the applicant met with them, thereafter she was persuaded by co-accused Jai Devi to go with the co- accused Madhav and the applicant, thereafter she went along with Madhav to Hyderabad by train, where the co- accused had sexually assaulted her repeatedly. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report and also the victim has spoken nothing against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, for the first time in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has developed a new story by alleging that the co-accused Jai Devi took her to the applicant and she was persuaded to go with him, thereafter the applicant took her to Hyderabad at the place of co-accused Madhav, where the applicant has sexually assaulted her repeatedly. In the statement the victim has spoken nothing against the co-
accused Madhav. The aforesaid huge contradictions in both the statements of the victim proves the entire prosecution story to be false and concocted. The victim has also refused to get herself medically examined and she has stated in writing before the Doctor that nothing wrong has happened to her, which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. As per own testimony of the victim she is 20 years old. The applicant was never in touch with the victim nor there was any conversations between them, which may be proved from the C.D.R. of the applicant. The real fact is that the victim was enticed away by the co-accused Madhav and being the brother-in-law of the co-accused Madhav, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his 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 applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 8th April, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant 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 applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 applicant 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 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 7.6.2019 Sushil/-