Allahabad High Court
Sompal vs State Of U.P. on 1 September, 2022
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12472 of 2019 Applicant :- Sompal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sompal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0293 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sindhauli, District- Shahjahanpur, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation of enticement of a minor girl with intention to marry and also allegation of rape against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. In the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she went with the applicant willingly, but subsequently in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has implicated the applicant for the alleged offence. It has been submitted that there are vital contractions in the statements of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motives. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 04.8.2018. Three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Thereafter no one is turning up. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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. 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) 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. 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 him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Ruchi Agrahari