Court granted bail to Bhagwan @ Ballar and Meera Devi in a case involving kidnapping, unnatural offences against a minor, and POCSO Act sections. Bail was subject to specific conditions including attendance and prohibition of adjournments.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each under specified conditions.
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. - 20638 of 2018
Applicant :- Sri Bhagwan @ Ballar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey,Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey and Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the only allegation against the present applicants is that they have taken the victim to Suremanpur Raniganj and handed her over to co-accused Rajesh Rai, with whom she went to Chhapra, Bihar and then to his aunty's (bua) house. On 20.06.2017 she went with the coaccused to Bilaspur Chattisgarh remained for almost one month in room at Bilaspur. From Bilaspur they went to Kolkata on 03.08.2017 to the house of the cousin of the alleged victim. In her statement recorded on 07.11.2017, under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim girl candidly stated that she married with the applicant in Chhapra, remained there for four months and lived with him four months as husband and wife and turned two and a half month's pregnant, which was got aborted by the applicant. On 03.11.2017 she any how managed to flee from Chhatisgarh to Ballia. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., on 05.12.2017, the victim reiterated the same version though with some improvements and embellishments. It was next contended that the radiological report of the victim reveals that she was opined to be
about 18 years of age at the relevant point of time. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant pleaded that from the aforesaid scenario, the victim appears to be a consenting party. The role of the applicants is quite distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Rajesh Rai. The applicants are in jail since 28.03.2018 without any criminal antecedent to their credit.
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 applicants.
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, this Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants Sri Bhagwan @ Ballar and Smt. Meera Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 542 of 2017, under sections 363, 372, 373, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Variya, District Ballia be released on bail 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 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 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 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE 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 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 wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 30.5.2018
shailesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have made out a case for bail in the present criminal mischief case.
Whether the two keywords are needed to be satisfied while granting bail.
Whether the applicants have ap. the argu.
8 provisions across 8 enactments
Bhagwan @ Ballar
Meera Devi
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
