Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 22 October, 2019
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43677 of 2019 Applicant :- Sandeep Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.1021 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the girl against the applicant on 21.11.2018 under Section 363 and 366 IPC. It is next submitted that the girl remained in the company of the applicant for nine months without raising any resistance or alarm. The girl, after recovery, has declined to get herself examined internally or externally. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is self-explicit. Though, as per educational qualification, she is aged about sixteen and half years but she has refused to get her ossification test done for the obvious reasons. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Sandeep Gupta, involved in case crime no.1021 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail 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 WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.
(iii) THE APPLICANT 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 IPC.
(iv) 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., 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Sumit S