Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 December, 2023
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237507
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46280 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjeev Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Darwari Lal,Shyam Babu Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sanjeev Pal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2023, under Sections 452,376,506 IPC and section 4 POCSO Act Police Station Shahi, District- Bareilly, during pendency of trial.
Ossification test of the victim was called from C.J.M./Special Judge(POCSO), Bareilly and letter has been sent by the Special Judge(POCSO), Bareilly informing that age of the victim as per ossification test report conducted by panel of three doctors has been found to be 17 years.Registered envelop has been sent but when the envelop was opened in court it was found to be empty.
The District Judge, Bareilly is directed to look into the matter.
There are allegations against the applicant of committing offences of rape, criminal intimidation and penetrative sexual assault after entering into the house of the victim.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that age of the victim as per ossification test report is about 17 years. Given margin of one year on higher side, she can be considered to be major.He has further submitted that from the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that she had given her mobile number to the applicant. In the medical report of the victim no sign of rape has been found.Medical report does not supports the prosecution case.It is a case of consenting relation. The brother of the applicant saw the victim in compromising position with applicant hence she has falsely implicated the applicant in this case. The applicant is in jail since 13.6.2023 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed
Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
6. The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 15.12.2023
Atul kr. sri.
