Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19984 of 2018 Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.N. Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.
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. 75 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur, District- Jyotiba Phule Nagar 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. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that initially the FIR was registered by the victim herself on 20.01.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 02.10.2017 under sections 323, 452, 376, 304, 506 IPC against two named accused persons including the present applicant. The fact of the case is that there was a relationship between the applicant and the victim for the last 4 years. The applicant is divorcee. He has made a promise to marry with the victim and for last four years established physical relationship with the victim, consequently, she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy. The allegation is that the applicant has now refused to marry and when pressurize, he got infuriated and killed her newly born baby. There was no postmortem of that baby. During investigation the police has dropped Section 323, 452, 506 and 304 IPC from the array of the sections holding that there is no offence relating to these sections. In her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has candidly stated that they were having a relationship for last four years and on account of her refusal to marry, she has lodged the FIR. She is an independent lady aged about 19-
20 years, who understand the far reaching repercussions of having a premarital sex with a person. She appears to be a consenting party of the entire episode. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 02.02.2018 having has no criminal antecedents except the present one.
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.
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 fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Waseem, 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 :- 28.5.2018 Nisha