Allahabad High Court
Rinku Paswan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51466 of 2022
Applicant :- Rinku Paswan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Gupta 2
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant;Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rinku Paswan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 394 of 2022, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of trial.
The ossification test report of the victim has been received. As per ossification test report the victim is aged about 18 years.
There are allegations of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offences of rape and penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she used to talk with applicant.When when her parents stopped her from talking she decided to run away with applicant and they went from Fatehpur to Kanpur and then went to Vijaywada. When her mother lodged F.I.R. she came back to Kanpur and was caught by the police in Fatehpur. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she admitted physical relationship with applicant. She is aged about 20 years. Now applicant is alleged to have refused to marry her.It is a case of false implication. The victim has admitted running away from her house.Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, 1964 LawSuit (SC) 209. It has been submitted that victim herself left the company of lawful guardianship of her parents on her own. The applicant did not took her away from the company of her guardianship.She has gone with applicant in different places but she has not raised any alarm or cried for help. Victim is major.The applicant is in jail since 16.6.2022 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have 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.
In case the trial has commenced, the trial court will conclude the same within a period one year as per section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 20.2.2023
Atul kr. sri.
