HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 29750 of 2019
Applicant :- Sadhu Giri @ Upendra Giri
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the informant, which is taken on record.
Heard Smt. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the FIR dated 04.03.2018 for the incident, allegedly occurred on 03.03.2018 has been lodged at P.S. Mardah,District Ghazipur by Suresh Ram, father of the victim, under Sectionsections 354, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC, 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act. As per medical examination report the victim is aged about 18 years. She further argued that initially there was an allegation for the offence under Sectionsection 354 IPC against the applicant, which later on was added with other added offence under the aforesaid sections, just to convert the offence into a serious mode.It is lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since 30.05.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
This Court is often amazed to experience as to when upon a person initiallyallegation for the offence under section 354 IPC is levelled, then how dramatically the other party drags the offender into the offence under section 376 IPC adding wild allegations of serious offence and some salt in it.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Sadhu Giri @ Upendra Giri involved in Case Crime No. 31of 2018, under Sectionsections 323, Section354, Section376, Section504, Section506 IPC 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act be released on bail on 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 SectionIPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 SectionIPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019