Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38766 of 2023 Applicant :- Gopal Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Saroj,Vishal Ohri Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. There are allegations in FIR that victim was abducted by applicant from her house along with 3-4 persons. Rs. 30,000/- and jewellery kept in the house was also taken away. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim was having consenting relationship with applicant. She came to this court for protection by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6849 of 2023 which was dismissed on the ground that the applicant is aged about 33 years and is married man and without divorcing his wife he has trapped the victim and stated before court that the applicant is only her friend. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that Apex Court in the case of Vinod Vs. State of Kerela passed in S.L.P (Criminal) No. 9014 of 2013, has held in paragraph 4 that where the victim entered into physical relationship with the applicant being aware that he was already married, then implication for committing offence of rape cannot be justified. The applicant is in jail since

12.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit. Counsel for informant has opposed the bail application and could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the applicant. 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, Gopal Srivastava, involved in Case Crime No. 48 of 2023, under Sections-366, 382, 504, 342, 376 IPC, Police Station-Vishungarh, District-Kannauj, 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 :- 8.12.2023 Rohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad