High Court

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice has been served upon opposite party No. 2 on 14.10.2024, however, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Let objection/ counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. List this case in the week commencing 25.11.2024 within top ten cases." The Coordinate Bench of this Court has noticed that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2024 and no one was present then. This time also, no one is appearing for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is proceeding in this matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 175 of 2024, under Sections- 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Section 376 IPC; Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act & Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station- Ghunghter, District- Barabanki. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the story narrated in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was enticed away by the applicant and the informant could know the same, when he awoke. He further submits that the incident is said to have occurred on 4.7.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 5.7.2024 in evening and the police station is about 4 kms away from the place of occurrence. He added that in fact, the statement under Section 180 BNSS is altogether contradictory to the prosecution story and even in the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecution story is changed as once it was asked by the investigating officer that 'what do you mean by wrongdoing', the victim remained silent. He also submits that the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution and no rape has ever been committed. He next submits that the police has also failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant and he has also shown other falsity in the prosecution story. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 8.7.2024. He also submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.7.2024; the statement under Section 180 BNSS is altogether contradictory to the prosecution story; the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution and it is vehemently contended that no rape has ever been committed; charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Deepu @ Deepu Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Shravan

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice has been served upon opposite party No. 2 on 14.10.2024, however, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Let objection/ counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. List this case in the week commencing 25.11.2024 within top ten cases." The Coordinate Bench of this Court has noticed that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2024 and no one was present then. This time also, no one is appearing for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is proceeding in this matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 175 of 2024, under Sections- 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023, Section 376 IPC; Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act & Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station- Ghunghter, District- Barabanki. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the story narrated in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was enticed away by the applicant and the informant could know the same, when he awoke. He further submits that the incident is said to have occurred on 4.7.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 5.7.2024 in evening and the police station is about 4 kms away from the place of occurrence. He added that in fact, the statement under Section 180 BNSS is altogether contradictory to the prosecution story and even in the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecution story is changed as once it was asked by the investigating officer that 'what do you mean by wrongdoing', the victim remained silent. He also submits that the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution and no rape has ever been committed. He next submits that the police has also failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant and he has also shown other falsity in the prosecution story. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 8.7.2024. He also submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.7.2024; the statement under Section 180 BNSS is altogether contradictory to the prosecution story; the medical report does not support the version of the prosecution and it is vehemently contended that no rape has ever been committed; charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Deepu @ Deepu Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Shravan