HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 27
Case :- BAIL No. – 1125 of 2019
Applicant :- Karan Bhargava (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Alok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 passed in Bail No.369 of 2018.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. As per the version of the F.I.R., the mother of the victim saw that victim was bleeding from the private part. He further submits that offence is alleged to have taken place on 22.08.2017. Prompt medical was done on the next date i.e. 23.08.2017. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that in the medico legal examination report, no mark of injury has been found on the private part of the victim. It is thus contended by learned counsel for applicant that the medical report falsifies the prosecution version. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that applicant is in jail since 23.10.2017 and he has no criminal history. It is also contended by learned counsel for applicant that till date the prosecution has not examined a single witness before the trial court.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Karan Bhargava involved in Crime No. 384 of 2017, under Section 377 IPC read with Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station – Nighasan, District – Lakhimpur Khiri 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 4.12.2019