High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41787 of 2022 Applicant :- Vijendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh,Raghvendra Pratap Singh,Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surya Nath Bhatt Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sita Ram Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Sri Surya Nath Bhatt, learned counsel for the informant is not present in the Court, even though the case is called out in the revised call. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.218 of 2022, under Sections 147, 376, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Bisauli, District-Budaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.The applicant is in jail since 25.07.2022. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that this is the interesting case, whereby the informant who is father of the victim, who has given a vivid description of the incident by making a mention that on 04.06.2022 around four in the morning her daughter was going to attend the call of nature, the applicant ambushed her and taken her to nearby place and started misbehaving by putting his hand in indecent way. On her screaming Raghuvir and other family members woke up and applicant fled away from the site. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the way and manner in which, the FIR is being registered clearly indicates that first informant has given a vivid description of the incident, as he claims to be an eye witness of the incident. The allegation fasten in the FIR would not travel beyond Section 354 IPC but gradually it has developed and the girl eventually in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement have fastened the allegation of rape upon the applicant. There is no justification coming forward for this change in the tone, texture and tenure of the case. The girl, as per radiological report is 19 years of age. The medico legal report given by the doctors totally unsupported the prosecution case as there is no injury over her private or external part of the body. Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, further submits that the applicant is worker and doing shuttering work and there were certain dues against the informant, and when the applicant went to claim that outstanding amount, instead of giving that amount, the first informant involved her own daughter by creating this story and lodged the present FIR by falsely implicating the present applicant in this case. It is interesting to point out here that the date and time of the incident is 04.06.2022 around 4.00 a.m. in the morning, whereas the FIR was registered on 04.06.2022 at 10.40 p.m. in the night. There is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR for which there is no plausible justification coming forward from the side of the prosecution. Learned A.G.A 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. Taking into account the shifting stand on the part of the first informant as well as the prosecutrix and there is no justification coming forward for false implication of the applicant in the present case on account of outstanding amount, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant, Vijendra, 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/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR 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/APPLICANTS. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 5.12.2022 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.06 18:21:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad