Allahabad High Court
Smt. Brajesh Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53248 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Brajesh Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Verma,Ram Raj Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Brajesh Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 87 of 2014, under Sections 376, 109, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 6/17 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that co-accused Rajveer has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42313 of 2014 (Rajveer vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is further argued that in the trial the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded as P.W.-2 wherein she although has not been declared hostile but has not supported the prosecution case. The copy of the said statement has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.02.2022 and Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.04.2022. It is argued while placing paragraph 5 of thesupplementary affidavit dated 21.02.2022 that a supplementary charge-sheet in the matter was submitted on 19.09.2017 on which the trial court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial but no summons or notices were ever served to the applicant and as such she had no information before 04.10.2021 of her being implicated in the present case. It is argued applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 14 and is in jail since 04.10.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that a charge-sheet dated 23.05.2014 was submitted against the applicant and Rajveer under Sections 120-B, 354 (Ka) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act on which the Court concerned took cognizance on 28.06.2014 and summoned the said accused persons. It is argued that the applicant kept on absconding since then. Subsequently a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the applicant in which Section 376 I.P.C. and 120-B I.P.C. was added and Section 8 POCSO Act was deleted and Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act was added which is dated 09.09.2014 on which the Court concerned took cognizance on 19.09.2014 and summoned the applicant and co-accused Rajveer. It is argued that even then the applicant kept on absconding. The absondence is for good 07 years. The first information report of the present case has been lodged on 03.04.2014. It is argued that there is no plausible and reasonable explanation given by the applicant regarding her abscondence. It is further argued that in so far Rajveer is concerned, he was granted bail in the year 2018 itself but even then the applicant kept on absconding since then. It is argued that there are good chances of her again absconding if granted bail.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant has been absconding in the matter since last 07 years. There is no plausible and reasonable explanation given by her regarding her abscondence and not joining in the case. The trial in the present case has started, the release of the applicant at this stage is not proper as there are again chances of the applicant absconding.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
