This judgment grants bail to Santosh Kumar Dubey in a criminal case involving offenses under Sections 354, 354A, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, noting a material shift in the prosecutrix's statement.
Applicant released on bail with court bond, two sureties, and personal bond admitting to specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial conclusion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12233 of 2018
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 724 of 2017, under Sections 354, 354A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted by the counsel that the prosecutrix is the informant. A prompt FIR was registered under Section 354, 354A, 376 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act with the allegation against one Vijay Mishra and unknown person with the allegation that a both the accused person started teasing her enroute and when she has raised alarm nearby person assembled at the place and any how she has able to save her dignity and honour. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement she has not ever whisper about the present applicant. In 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 19.12.2017 then he has disclosed the name of the applicant for the first time that both the accused persons has tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. Thus there is material shift in the stand in the version of the victim who started his story by levelling the allegation of teasing and attempt to rape upon her. As per ossification test she is 16 - 171/2 years of her age. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.12.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the entire gamut of circumstances, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Santosh Kumar Dubey be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 724 of 2017, under Sections 354, 354A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM 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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant/applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a 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 :- 20.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial under the Non-Bailable Cognition.
Santosh Kumar Dubey
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
