Single Judge order granting bail to an applicant charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court noted the prosecutrix's subsequent married status and statement retracting coercive allegations as a factor for granting bail.
Applicant released on bail in the said case upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 15529 of 2018
Applicant :- Anil Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 18 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and 5(L)(G)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kuthond, District- Jalaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered against 5 named accused persons including the present applicant. Initially the FIR was registered by the mother of the prosecutrix after 15 days of the incident on 28.01.2016 under sections 363, 366, 368 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act. The prosecutrix was recovered on 04.03.2017 and thereafter, she was put to her statement recorded u/s 164 in which she has stated that all the accused persons including the present applicant have committed rape upon her. The learned counsel for the applicant further states that one of the accused person namely Parul Gupta had got married with the prosecutrix on 19.05.2016. The marriage certificate of Parul Gupta and the prosecutrix, signed by the Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Jhansi which is annexed as annexure-7 to the affidavit. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix, she was handed over to her parents. The husband Parul Gupta came to approach this court and has filed a Hebeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 16969 of 2017 which was disposed of by the co-ordinate bench of this court on 16.08.2017 while the aforesaid hebeas corpus writ petition was pending. The prosecutrix was summoned before the court and the court has questioned from the corpus i.e. Ms. Chhama Devi. She has categorically stated before the Court which is quoted below :-
" On being questioned, the corpus who has been produced by petitioner no.2 and has been duly identified by the counsels for the respective parties, has stated that in fact she has attained the age of majority and her date of birth as per the High School certificate is 10th August, 1999. She
has stated that she has not given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on her own volition but was forced to give such statement levelling allegations against petitioner no.2 with whom in fact she is happily married and has stated that she is also carrying pregnancy of four months. She has categorically stated that she was never kidnapped by petitioner no.2 and his family members. In fact, she had left her parental home as she was in love with petitioner no.2. She had conceived earlier also."
Therefore, relying upon the above statement that she is a major girl, this court has disposed of the petition with the direction that let the victim be permitted to go along with the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Parul Gupta in accordance with her own free will and accord. Since the prosecutrix is now a married lady with Parul Gupta. There is no allegation of rape upon the accused applicant, Anil Soni. It has lastly been argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.03.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Anil Soni , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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 SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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 THE HIM/HER 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 APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at 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 :- 26.4.2018 Nisha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence involving sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and POCSO Act.
Anil Soni
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
