Pawan Urf Suraj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5080 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pawan Urf Suraj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 February, 2025

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21439
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23268 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Pawan Urf Suraj
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
 

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Pawan Urf Suraj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2017, under Sections 363, 372, 373, 376, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3/4, 5/6, 5/9 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act & Section 12 POCSO Act, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36384 of 2021.

5. In compliance of order dated 18.04.2024 of this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court a supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2024 and submitted that the order dated 08.04.2022 rejecting the first bail application of the applicant has been filed before the trial court concerned on 06.08.2024. It is submitted that despite filing of the said order, the trial in the matter has not yet concluded. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 01.07.2021 and thus be granted bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that although, the trial of the present case was expedited vide order dated 08.04.2022 but the applicant chose not to file it before the trial court and to bring it to the notice of the trial court for its compliance but it was only when this Court made a query to learned counsel for the applicant on 18.04.2024 as to whether, the said order has been filed before the trial court or not, then the said order was filed even four months after it on 06.08.2024 before the trial court as it would appear from the order sheet of the trial court. It is submitted that the applicant had absconded for four years. It is further submitted that the matter is serious in nature, since the first informant and victim are not traceable and the abscondance of the applicant cannot be thus left in isolation. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant as of now does not deserves to be considered since the victim girls are yet to be examined by the trial court. It is submitted that the bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail application is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022. The said order reads as under :-

"Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pawan @ Suraj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 62 of 2017, under Sections 363, 372, 373, 376, 120-B I.P.C., 3/4, 5/6, 5/9 Immoral Traffi Prevention Act & 12 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the applicant is named in the first information report which was lodged on 19.01.2017 along with co-accused Arvind who is his behnoi and the applicant has been arrested on 01.07.2021 and as such there has been an abscondence of about 04 years and 06 months. It is argued that as such release of the applicant will definitely have chance of his further absconding in the matter.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued in rebuttal that the applicant is aged about 70 years. Paragraph 14 has been placed. It is argued that co-accused Manoj @ Sanoj; Ganesh @ Rajesh @ Kalu; Arvind @ Sahji @ Babli; Yogesh; Kamlesh @ Kallo have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 01.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 05.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and 16.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15167 of 2017, 18604 of 2017, 23097 of 2017, 18457 of 2017 and 18761 of 2017, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Geeta @ Aarti has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34533 of 2021, the copy of the said order has been produced which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant had no information about the case being lodged against him and as such he did not surrender or explored legal remedies available.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant has absconded for about 04 years and 06 months. There is no explanation given whatsoever regarding his abscondence for such a long time. Co-accused Arvind is his relative being his brother-in-law / sadhu. It cannot be said that the applicant had no information about his implication in the present matter. It further transpires that trial in the present matter has started which is referred to in the order rejecting bail of the applicant by the trial court.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specifically the abscondence of the applicant for a long time and since trial has started in which the evidence of witnesses is going on, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant, hence, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.

It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.

8. On 18.04.2024 the following order was passed by this Court :

"1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

3. Notice was issued to the first informant through the CJM concerned vide order dated 09.10.2023 which was subsequently informed by the CJM concerned vide his report dated 05.01.2024 that the house at the given address is reported to be vacant. Learned counsel for the State was then granted time to serve notice on the first informant and file an affidavit of compliance vide order dated 16.02.2024 of this Court. An affidavit of compliance dated 11.03.2024 has been filed by the learned counsel for the State which is on record. Perusal of the same goes to show that the affidavit in the same is of Mr. Rohit posted as Sub-Inspector, P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit it is stated that in compliance of order dated 16.02.2024 efforts were made to serve notice of the present bail application to the first informant but at the given address no one was found residing and therefore he contacted the Resident Welfare Association of the Society to which he was given a letter in writing that no person is residing in the said house and the entire house is vacant. Further in paragraph no.5 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the trial is in progress and trial court has issued notice to the sister of the victim on different dates, the order sheet of the trial court from 22.12.2023 to 01.03.2024 has been filed for the same. In view of the same, although notice has not been served on the first informant and the victim but efforts were made for the same which did not prove successful since they are not traceable. The court thus proceeds to hearing the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for ten days time to seeks instructions as to whether the order dated 08.04.2022 of this Court passed in the first bail application of the applicant expediting the trial has been filed before the trial court or not.

5. Prayer is allowed.

6. List on 10.05.2024."

9. A supplementary affidavit has then been filed on 23.09.2024 annexing with the order dated 06.08.2024 of the trial court which goes to show that the order dated 08.04.2022 rejecting the first bail application of the applicant expediting the trial has been filed before the trial court after about two years and two months. More so, the applicant had initially absconded for a period of about four years. In the present matter, a report of the trial court dated 30.10.2024 is also on record, which shows that there are three victim girls identified as Victim-A, Victim-B and Victim-C, they have not yet been examined. The first informant is also not traceable. The matter thus appears to be serious in nature.

10. In view of the same, since the first informant is not traceable and three victim girls are yet to be examined and also that the applicant had initially absconded for about four years, this is not a good case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 14.2.2025

Manoj