Jai Deep Singh Chauhan @ Jaydeep v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46568 of 2023 Applicant :- Jai Deep Singh Chauhan @ Jaydeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharda Vishwakarma,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Ms. Sharda Vishwakarma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Jai Deep Singh Chauhan @ Jaydeep seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Section 376, 384 I.P.C., Police Station-Phulpur, District-Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.

¶4Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 16.10.2023 was lodged by first informant/prosecutrix Jugun Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Section 376, 384 I.P.C., Police Station-Phulpur, District-Prayagraj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Jai Deep Singh Chauhan @ Jaydeep has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶5Learned counsel for applicant submits that marriage of applicant was solemnized with Kavita Singh younger brother of the prosecutrix. However, the first informant/prosecutrix persistently demanded that the applicant should solemnized marriage with herself. The said request was negated by the applicant on the ground that since he is already married therefore, no marriage of the applicant can be solemnized with her. Irrespective of above, ultimately marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Kavita Singh. It is thus, urged that present criminal proceedings are malicious.

¶6According to the learned counsel for applicant the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. No allegation has been made by the wife of the applicant i.e the real sister of the first informant against the applicant. The present criminal proceedings are malicious and have been engineered on account of extraneous considerations.

¶7Even 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 17.06.2023. As such he has undergone more than 4 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 prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits 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.

¶8Per 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 inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 13.08.2023, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶9Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused-applicant, gravity and nature of offence and accusation made coupled with the fact that the marriage of the applicant has been solemnized with the younger sister of the first informant, the applicant refused to solemnize marriage with the first informant on the ground that she is already married, the wife of the applicant has not made any statement against applicant regarding dislodging the modesty of the first informant, the present criminal proceedings appear to have been engineered on account of extraneous considerations, there is nothing on record to show that the prosecutrix is an unknown lady, inspite of the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, ye the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11Let the applicant-Jai Deep Singh Chauhan @ Jaydeep, 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.

¶12However, 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 :- 2.11.2023 Imtiyaz High Court of Judicature at Allahabad