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

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50874 of 2023 Applicant :- Munnilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Janardhan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Learned AGA submits that notice of the instant application has been served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no.3-Child Welfare Committee on 05.11.2023. However, when the case is taken up no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Receiving endorsements produced by learned AGA, are taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2023, under Sections 354-B, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Pakadi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the informant belong to the same family. There is a property dispute pending between the parties. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. The independent eye witnesses Manju and Janti Devi in their statements to the police did not allege any indecent behavior by the applicant with the victim. In the alleged incident, the victim has not sustained any injury. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the independent eye witnesses Manju and Janti Devi in their statements to the police did not allege any indecent behavior by the applicant with the victim. The victim has not sustained any injury. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant Munni Lal, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 7.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad