High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2070 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajendra Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Rajendra Rajbhar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) I.P.C. and Sections ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Haldharpur, District Mau during pendency of trial. 4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present application for bail has been served upon opposite party no.2. However in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. 5. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 4.3.2021 a delayed F.I.R. dated 2.4.2021 was lodged by first informant Ram Keval Rajbhar (father of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 86 of 2021, under Section 363 I.P.C. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Rajendra Rajbhar has been nominated as solitary named accused. 6. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. it is alleged that named accused Rajendra Rajbhar (applicant herein) enticed away the minor daughter of first informant. 7. Subsequent to above F.I.R. dated 2.4.2021 the prosecutrix was recovered on 28.11.2021. Thereafter the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer which is on record as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit. This was followed by medical examination of the victim. However the prosecutrix refused her internal medical examination. Ultimately the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The same is on record as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit. During course of investigation Investigating Officer also recovered the High School Certificate of prosecutrix wherein date of birth of the prosecutrix has been mentioned as 10.04.2004. As such on the date of incident prosecutrix was aged about 16 years, eleven months and twenty two days. 8. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted as such applicant is being falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. Prosecutrix is a consenting party. It is then submitted that applicant and prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and have been living together as husband and wife. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents and has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.11.2021. He has undergone incarceration for more than two months and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail, and shall co-operate with the trial. 9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He contends that as per High School Certificate the prosecutrix is a minor as such applicant does not deserve any sympathy by this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. 10. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Rajendra Rajbhar, 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. 12. 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 :- 7.2.2022 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.02.09 11:00:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad