Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51538 of 2023 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh,Amar Jeet Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶2This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 05.01.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, which is not available now.

¶3There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of rape of a physically and mentally challenged girl.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the informant/P.W.1 has been examined before the trial court, who has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that the statement of victim has not been recorded till date. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. This is the case of false implication and the trial will take time to conclude. Hence, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶5On the other hand, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that after the statement of prosecutrix recorded before the trial court, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail.

¶7Keeping 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.

¶8Let the applicant-Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad, involved in S.T. No. 959 of 2022 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad) arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2022, under Section-376(2)(I) of IPC, Police Station-Manda, District-Prayagraj, be released on bail after the statement of prosecutrix recorded before the trial court, 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.

¶9In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶10Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶11Trial court is directed to record the statement of prosecutrix within the period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶12Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days. Order Date :- 6.12.2023 Saif High Court of Judicature at Allahabad