SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 43717 of 2019

Applicant :- Sonu

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Amit Rana

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 377 of 2019, under Sections 354, Section376, Section452 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Seohara, District Bijnor, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the father of the girl has registered the FIR against the applicant with the allegation that on 10.08.2019 in the night, when his daughter was sleeping on the roof of his house, the applicant barged into his house and tried to outrage her modesty. The age of the girl is almost 17 1/2 years. All the witness have given statement touching the Sectionsection 354 IPC. Initially the FIR has registered under Sections 452, Section354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and on the basis of statement of victim recored under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Sectionsections 376 IPC has been added. Besides this, she has denied the medical examination for ascertaining sexual assault. It is further contended that their is no occasion or justified reason to swell the allegation from Sectionsection 354 IPC and Sectionsection 376 IPC. This is the material shift in the stand coupled with the fact that she has denied to get her medical examination done by the doctor for the obvious reasons. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 31.08.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, taking into account shifting the age of the girl, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

In view of the above, let the applicant- Sonu, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 377 of 2019, under Sections 354, Section376, Section452 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Seohara, District Bijnor, with the following conditions:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A SectionIPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 APPLICANTS.

However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 22.10.2019/v.k.updh.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation