Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. on 12 November, 2014
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30003 of 2014
Applicant :- Rajesh Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra,R.K. Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Laxmi Pd. Gupta
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and are taken on record.
Heard SRi RP Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Laxmi Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri LD Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is civil dispute pending between the father of the victim and the father of applicant no. 2 in respect of some property dipsute in which the father of applicant no. 2 got injunction order in his favour and due to which enmity arose and the applicants are being falsely implicated in the case with the false allegation of molestation and with an intention to commit rape.
It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per medical opinion, prosecutrix is 18 years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. Although, she has made an allegation of rape against the applicant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence and surrounding circumstances is totally belies the prosecution case as well as the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicants Rajesh Gupta, son of Dina Gupta and Tulsi Maurya, son of Prem Chandra Maurya, involved in Case Crime No. 248 of 2014 under Sections 354, 452, 376-Gha, 506 IPC and Section 4 b of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, police station Dullahpur, district Ghazipur be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants 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 them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 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 them in accordance with law.
The Trail court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 12.11.2014
SKS
