Allahabad High Court
Suraj Pal Alias Deepu Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 29 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13656 of 2022 Applicant :- Suraj Pal Alias Deepu Chaurasia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chamupati,Upendra Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Case called out.
The name of Sri Virdendra Singh has been shown as counsel for the complainant in the cause list but he is not present in Court.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.00281 of 2022 under Sections 368,376D,506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Thakurganj District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mother of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 06.06.2022 and she has stated specifically that co-accused- Neeraj Chaurasia had taken away her daughter forcefully. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after recovery of victim/prosecutrix, her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and no role has been assigned to the applicant and in her statement the prosecutrix has stated that consensual relation was made with the co-accused Neeraj Chaurasia and she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that the applicant taken away the prosecutrix to Banglore where she remained with co-accused Neeraj Chaurasia and physical relation was made. He further stated that from Banglore prosecurtix came to Lucknow for marriage purposes and thereafter she had gone to Delhi with co-accused- Neeraj Chaurasia and for the first time she has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicant, who is real brother of Neeraj- co-accused had committed rape on her when Neeraj- co-accused was not present in the house. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this statement is after thought and entire fact of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that it is case of consent because she remained with co-accused Neeraj for a long period. However, when she was recovered, under duress she has given statement that present applicant who is real brother of co-accused Neeraj has committed rape on her which is unnatural . It is submitted that only on the behest of pressure of the family, the prosecutrix made statement against the applicant. It has been submitted that as per the F.I.R., the age of the proxecurix is 18 years and 6 months.The applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tempering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2022.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is case of rape as such the applicant is not entitled for bail..
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. as also he was not named in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosectutrix and for the first time the applicant has been named in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. as such there is possibility of false implication because the applicant is real brother of co-accused- Neeraj, I find it a fit case for bail Let the applicant, namely, Suraj Pal Alias Deepu Chaurasia, be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
Order Date :- 29.3.2023 dk/