Allahabad High Court
Joginder Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 January, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:963
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36622 of 2023
Applicant :- Joginder Rajbhar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.434 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is not named in the impugned FIR. He submitted that the FIR was lodged on 25.5.2023 and the victim was recovered on 9.6.2023. He submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has stated that she herself went with the applicant and solemnized marriage with the applicant on her own sweet will and they are living as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim is below 18 years. It is further submitted that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side in this connection he has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of J. and K. and others reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1297. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 10.6.2023. He submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
6. Let the applicant- Joginder Rajbhar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 counsel. In case of his 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 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 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024
Krishna*
