Court allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO/IPC case. The judge directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings within six months citing Supreme Court precedents, without deciding on the merits of the case.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; trial directed to be concluded within six months.
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. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22085 of 2018
Applicant :- Vijendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Braham Singh,Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
This is the second bail application on behalf of applicant. The first bail application on behalf of applicant had been rejected by Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J. vide order dated 08.04.2016.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that there seems no denial that the victim was not sexually assaulted. It is further submitted that during the course of trial the complainant and two other witnesses namely Dharmpal and Rajendra Kumar have been examined before the trial court and none of the aforesaid witnesses of the fact have support the prosecution version and they have been declared hostile. A copy of the statement of the witnesses have been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 25.05.2015 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Vijendra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2015, under Sections 377/511, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Mundha Pandey, DistrictMoradabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Cour in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the antecedents and the nature of allegations.
Whether the trial should be concluded expeditiously as per Apex Court directives.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶13
AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijendra
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
