Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28382 of 2019 Applicant :- Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.259 of 2018, under Section 452, 354B, 376D IPC, Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that husband of the prosecutrix has lodged the FIR on 30.11.2018 for the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 28.11.2018 against unknown persons for the misbehaviour with his wife. The identity of the assailants was not disclosed in the FIR. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the prosecutrix has taken the name of one Chunia for misbehaving with her and disrobing her. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which was recorded after one month of the incident, theory of misbehaving was swelled into commission of rape and that too upon Chunia. The next contention is that the name of the applicant figured up in the statement of co-accused Chunia. It is next contended that no identification parade was conducted by the police. The prosecution story is floating upon uncertain facts. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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-Suresh Yadav, involved in case crime no.259 of 2018, under Section 452, 354B, 376D IPC, Police Station-
Baberu, District-Banda be released on bail 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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Sumit S