Allahabad High Court
Birendra Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 March, 2020
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11085 of 2020 Applicant :- Birendra Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pavan Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. It is contended that the victim was in love with the applicant and relationship between them was consensual. The medical examination does not corroborate the prosecution story of rape and cannot be necessarily connected with the alleged act of assault said to have been committed by the applicant. It is further contended that the averments of first information report, statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are also contradictory. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 24.9.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant ? Birendra Rajbhar involved in the aforementioned 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:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;
(3) 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.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2018 SC 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Digamber