HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 9090 of 2020
Applicant :- Deepu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly,Vikash Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malicious intention. As per ossification test report of the victim she is aged about 7 years. The victim was medically examined on 28.11.2019 in which no injury was found by the doctor and no definite opinion about sexual assault was recorded by the doctor. It is further submitted that no offence u/s 376 IPC is being made out against the applicant in the first information report. The case does not travel beyond section 354 IPC from the FIR and initial statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has been tutored by the informant was an accused in Case Crime No. 1067 of 2015 for which S.T. No. 365 of 2015 (State Vs. Gautam Prasad), P.S. Salempur Kotwali, District Deoria, as the applicant was assistant to the informant in the fraud case and the instant case was set up to stop applicant from giving evidence against them, the said fact has been mentioned in para 14 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 28.11.2019 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has 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, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Deepu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2019, under Sections 376 IPC Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station- Salempur, District- Deoria on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. Two Lacs (One should be of a family member) each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
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 reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 5.3.2020