Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Dubey @ Manish Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147572
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28898 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajendra Dubey @ Manish Dubey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Dutta Mishra,Manjulesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Dutta Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rajendra Dubey @ Manish Dubey seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0440 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 12.11.2021, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 22.11.2021 was filed by first informant-Ram Vilas (father of the prosecutrix) before the concerned Magistrate. The said application was allowed. Resultantly, an FIR dated 17.06.2022 was registered as Case Crime No. 0440 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Rajendra Dubey @ Manish Dubey has been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that on the false promise of marriage, the applicant maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix continuously and regularly for a period of 6 months but ultimately resiled from his promise to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix.
6. After abovementioned FIR was lodged, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the prosecutrix has remained categorical and has supported the prosecution story. The prosecutrix was also medically examined. However, the Doctor who had medically examined the prosecutrix did not find any signs on her body so as to denote commission of sexual assault. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein again the prosecutrix has supported the FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, he came to the conclusion that the complicity of applicant is established in the crime in question. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 07.04.2023 whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 366, 376 IPC.
7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The prosecutrix is major. She is a willing and consenting party. No false promise of marriage was ever made by the applicant to the prosecutrix. It is then contended that it has now come in the statement of the brother of the prosecutrix that the marriage of the prosecutrix has already been solemnized. He, therefore, submits that present criminal proceedings have been engineered on account of extraneous consideration. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 06.04.2023. As such, he has undergone 3 and 1/2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecutrix against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Attention of the Court was also invited to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5). It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of applicant and considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant which could not be dislodged by the learned A.G.A. but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant-Rajendra Dubey @ Manish Dubey, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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 THE HIM/HER 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.
12. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 24.7.2023
Vinay
