Umesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38704 of 2023 Applicant :- Umesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manisha Chaturvedi,Pradeep Kumar Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. There are allegations against the applicant of abduction of a minor girl, committing offences of rape and penetrative sexual assault. Counsel for applicant submits that in the statement of victim and as per her own admission and her ossification test report she is aged about 16 years. Given margin of two years on the higher side, she can be considered to be major. From the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that she was consenting party. She has admitted entering into physical relationship with the applicant and co-accused. She has also claimed that she loves the applicant. Counsel for the applicant also submits that victim has also stated that in case the applicant marries her she is willing to live with him. He has submitted that implication of the applicant has been made only to pressurize him to marry the victim. It is a case of false implication. The applicant is in jail since 08.02.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. 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; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; 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, Umesh, involved in Case Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections-363, 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Hathgaon, District-Fatehpur, 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Rohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad