Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32367 of 2019 Applicant :- Vinay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchi Mishra,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Vinay Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial.
In respect of an incident which occurred on 19.1.2019, an F.I.R dated 21.1.2019 was lodged by Dileep Singh Chauhan, father of the prosecutrix, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0024 of 2019, under sections 363 and 366 IPC, P.S. Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., one Ankit Singh was nominated as named accused, whereas another person, who was fellow passenger in the Bolero Car, was nominated as unnamed accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., Ankit Singh came in Bolero Car along with unknown persons and took away the daughter of the first informant i.e. the prosecutrix Anjali, who is aged about 17 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the mark-sheet of the prosecutrix, which is on record at page 21 of the paper book and on the basis thereof, he submits that date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the High School Certificate is 15.7.2001, whereas incident has occurred on 19.1.2019. As such, prosecutrix is more than 17 years of age on the date of alleged incident. Consequently, the mandatory provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. are not required to be complied with in the present case. It is then submitted that the applicant is innocent. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The applicant is in jail since 26.4.2019. It is next submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 22.1.2019, followed by her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. In both the statements, the prosecutrix has remained consistent and she has not implicated the present applicant in the alleged criminality. It is thus urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Vinay Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 wilful 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 :- 26.8.2019 Arshad