Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56829 of 2019 Applicant :- Sumit Modanwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri C.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Sumit Modanwal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 272 of 2019, under Sections - 363, 366, 354Ka, 342 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Madiyahun, District - Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of abduction to force marriage and other offences, punishable with imprisonment of ten years;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 10.8.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 5.9.2019;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) as to criminal history, it has been submitted, there is one case under the Gambling Act wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail;
(v) charge-sheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged with the delay of ten days, which has remained unexplained. Then, it has been submitted, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. The bail application of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant. They submit that the FIR allegations are wholly supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, there is no ground for grant of bail.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the inconsistency of the FIR allegations as compared to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. apart and without drawing any inference as to fact, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind, there is some delay in lodging the FIR as also the status of the criminal history and also keeping in mind that the trial is expected to take some time, the applicant is entitled to enlarged on bail.
6. In view of the above, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
10. Also, it is expected that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Prakhar