Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9051 of 2022
Applicant :- Ranjeet
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Diwanshu Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.
There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of rape against the minor girl in the FIR.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the victim as per ossification test is not minor but major. The medical report does not supports the prosecution case at all. There is no mark of internal or external injury found on the body of deceased.
Counsel for the applicant also submits that the victim has admitted in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C that there is toilet in her house but she went outside to attend the call of nature along with her friend where the alleged offence is alleged to have taken place. There is no explanation why the victim went out to ease herself when there is toilet in her house. The applicant is in jail since 15.11.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Counsel for the informant has informed the court that the trial has begun. Only three prosecution witnesses have been examined before this Court.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
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, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and 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 and 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, Ranjeet, involved in Case Crime No. 493 of 2021, under Sections- 376/506 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Tirwa, District- Kannauj, 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.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses 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 fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) 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 absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023
Rohit
