Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2899 of 2017 Applicant :- Uday Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra for the applicant; Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun for the informant; the learned A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 411 of 2015, under Sections 323, 354, 506, 376 I.P.C. and section 4 Pocso Act, police station Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The second bail application has been pressed by placing reliance on the statement of the victim recorded during the course of trial in which she has resiled from the prosecution case by completely denying the incident and the involvement of the applicant, and has also disclosed her age as 20 years. A certified copy of the statement has been brought on record as Annexure S.A.-I to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2017.
On 15.12.2017, after noticing the facts of the case, this Court had required the learned A.G.A. to file a supplementary counter-affidavit disclosing whether the clothes recovered from the victim were sent for DNA matching or not.
Pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2017, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed today, which has been taken on record.
Although in the supplementary counter-affidavit it is stated that the brother of the victim had supported the prosecution case but the DNA matching report, which has been enclosed as annexure 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, though discloses that the stains were referable to human blood and spermatozoa was found but, does not disclose that the spermatozoa was of the same DNA as of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that since the victim has stated that she is aged 20 years and she has resiled from the prosecution case, it becomes a fit case for bail because the applicant has already suffered incarceration of over two and a half years and as the statement of the victim has already been recorded, there is no possibility of the applicant misusing the liberty of bail. It has also been stated that the applicant has no previous criminal history; he is in jail since 15.10.2015 and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the statement of the victim recorded during the course of trial as also that it is unlikely that applicant would misuse the liberty of bail, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Uday Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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; and
(v) 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.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari