Allahabad High Court
Netrapal vs State Of U.P. on 5 December, 2019
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20965 of 2018 Applicant :- Netrapal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Netrapal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.303 of 2015, under Sections 376 D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of gang rape on a minor child punishable upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 15.6.2015 the applicant is in confinement since then;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted in the year 2015, however, the trial has yet not progressed, inasmuch as, not a single statement has been recorded.
(vi) The first bail application of the applicant had been rejected by this Court on 9.5.2016 being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14626 of 2016. For ready reference, that order is quoted below:
"The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 303 of 2015, Under Sections 376D, 3/4 POSCO Act, Police Station-Vilaspur, District- Rampur.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not support the prosecution case as no mark of injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and the hymen was also found old torn; that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; that an application was moved by the said prosecutrix to the S.S.P. concerned on 15.6.2015 and in that application she had stated that the accused-applicant had not committed rape with her and it was one Babu who had committed rape with her, so the applicant should be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has further submitted that the accused-applicant was arrested on the spot; that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence in question; that she in her statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.6.2015 has clearly stated that the applicant has committed rape with her, so the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter and the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Hence, the bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
(vii) However, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after rejection of the first bail application filed by the applicant, the co-accused Babu Balmiki was enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.17076 of 2017 vide order dated 17.5.2017. Thus, it has been submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Also, substantial period of time has passed, yet, the trial has not progressed. Thus, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The liberty of the applicant cannot remain curtailed indefinitely.
(viii) in any case, no apprehension has been brought to the fore by the state and or the informant that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two (heavy) sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
5. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
7. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Meenu