Allahabad High Court
Faizan Warsi @ Monis vs State Of U.P. on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12668 of 2022
Applicant :- Faizan Warsi @ Monis
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 723 of 2021, under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim herself is the informant, lodged this F.I.R. on 03.09.2021 and applicant is in jail in connection with the F.I.R. since 23.12.2021. From the text of the F.I.R. it is clear that both of them are indulged in sexual relationship since last two years. As per her date of birth mentioned in the high school certificate is 03.02.1997 and thus on the time of incident she is major girl. It is contended that this relationship is continued for a period of 4 years on a false pretext of marriage. Being a major girl, she understand the meaning of premarital sex with the unknown person, but despite of the fact, she has permitted herself to have a sexual relationship with the applicant. It is further contended that medical report clearly indicates that there is no external or internal injury specially on the anal area, which belies the allegation of sodomy.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon three judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand in Crl. Appeal No. 635 of 2020 decided on 28.09.2020, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 327 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 to buttress his contention.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions.
Keeping in view the rival submissions and taking the guidelines of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant- Faizan Warsi @ Monis, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/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 HIS/HER/THEIR 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/APPLICANTS.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.6.2022
Bhanu
