High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51405 of 2022 Applicant :- Ajay Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Akhilesh Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed applicant Ajay Singh Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 380 of 2022, under sections 328, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 8.4.2022 was lodged by first informant Priti Thrivedi and was registered as Case Crime No. 380 of 2022, under sections 328, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused. It is apposite to mentioned here that the day, date and time of occurrence has neither been mentioned in the requisite column of the F.I.R. nor the same has been detailed in the body of the F.I.R. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that prosecutrix is a widow, whereas the applicant is a widower. As such, both agreed to live together as paying guest. The F.I.R. further records that applicant repeatedly dislodged the modesty of prosecutrix by forcibly committing rape upon her. After lodging of aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has reiterated the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. but with better particulars and details. Thereafter the prosecutrix was medically examined. The prosecutrix in her statement before the Doctor has improved upon her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., However, the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix, did not find any signs on her body so as to denote commission of sexual assault. Certain samples were taken from the body of prosecutrix for pathological examination. However, supplementary medical report has not been brought on record. Various other witnesses were also examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. who have also supported the prosecution story. Thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has reiterated her earlier statement as recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The matter is still under investigation. Learned counsel for applicant submits that prosecutrix is major as per her statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C,. It is then contended that prosecutrix is a widow whereas the applicant is a widower. In view of the aforesaid precarious circumstance, applicant and prosecutrix agreed to live together i.e. live-in-relationship. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that prosecutrix is a consenting party. As such, no offence under section 376 IPC can be said to have been committed by applicant. According to learned counsel for applicant the bonafide of the applicant is further explicit from the fact that he has executed a registered sale-deed dated 19.1.2019 with regard to his immovable property in favour of prosecutrix. Applicant is ready to marry the prosecutrix. It is the prosecutrix who has now refused to marry the applicant It is then contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 12.8.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 3 months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed this application. He contends that applicant is named accused. He is guilty of dislodging the modesty of prosecturix. On the aforesaid facts, learned A.G.A. submits that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that applicant is a widower whereas prosecutrix is a widow, admitted fact that parties agreed to live together in live-in-relation, since the parties are living together since 2019, the prosecutrix being major and consenting party but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. Let the applicant Ajay Singh Yadav, 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 :- 16.11.2022 Arshad Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.11.21 17:56:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad