Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15078 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.84 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandinagar, District- Baghpat is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix herself for the alleged act of dowry atrocities and sexual harassment by her in-laws. She is a married woman and kept on bearing the ill-treatment meted out by her in-laws and ultimately on 14.03.2018 she lodged the present FIR against her husband, father-in-law, elder brother-in-law, younger brother-in-law & mother-in-law, thereby the entire family members of the victim were roped in the present case. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.03.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix states that she was subject matter of rape by the applicant as well as by father-in-law. This allegation by itself is repulsive, unswallable, and per se motivated one with object to give more serious and grim look to dowry atrocities as alleged by her. The medical report completely blast this wild allegation of rape upon her by these persons.
Learned AGA 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.
I have gone through the context of the FIR version, which is full of melodrama and imagination only to achieve a particular purpose. In the earlier part of the FIR version, there is allegation of dowry demand, which later on swelled into rape by brother-in-laws of the prosecutrix. The entire prosecution story does not repose confidence.
Keeping in view the glaring contradiction in FIR version, which appears to be developed to achieve a particular purpose, 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, Surendra, involved in case crime no.84 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandinagar, District- Baghpat 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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 willful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Anoop