Allahabad High Court
Abubakar Qureshi vs State Of U.P And Another on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34128 of 2021
Applicant :- Abubakar Qureshi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant of commission of offence of rape,penetrative sexual assault intoxication of a minor girl belonging to SC/ST caste.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the date of incident is 13.06.2021 which was the period of spread of second wave of noval corona virus. It is alleged that the victim was working in a field when some cloth was kept on her nose she become unconscious. She was abducted by the applicant and taken to the hotel where the alleged offence was committed. Medical report of the victim which was conducted on the next day does not supports the allegation made in the first information report. The staff members of the hotel stated that on account of spread of corona, hotel in dispute was closed and the victim was never taken by the applicant to the hotel. Applicant is in jail since 14.06.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that before the trial court not a single witness has been examined.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
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 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, Abubakar Qureshi, involved in Case Crime No.66 of 2021, under Sections 328, 376 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sikhera, District- Muzaffar Nagar 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within a week.
Order Date :- 29.3.2023
SS
