The Court allowed a bail application for the accused Sonu in a criminal case involving Sections 323, 354(K), 376, 511, and 504 IPC. The Court imposed personal bond and local sureties subject to conditions and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Release of the applicant on bail furnished by personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23697 of 2018
Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tripathi,Bibhuti Narayan Singh,Heera Lal Yadav,Shamshuddin Khan,Sunil Kumar Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Mani Pal,Sitaram Patel
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sitaram Patel, learned counsel for the informant, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sonu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354-Kha, 376, 511, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Balaini, District- Baghpat , during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further argued that the victim is 35 years old lady. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 31.03.2019 against unknown person regarding molesting the victim. It is further argued that there are variations in statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Though the name of the applicant surfaced in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but he has not been named in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which makes the prosecution story doubtful. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of recovery of cloths of the victim. The recovery was planted one and there is no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further argued that the prosecution story is not supported by the medical evidence. Learned counsel has also pressed the period of detention as the applicant is in jail since 02.04.2018. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 , if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 JK Yadav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case involving sexual offences given the variations in victim statements and lack of medical evidence support.
Whether the trial court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.
What conditions should be imposed on the bail granted to the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherExplained¶15
AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
Sonu
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manju Rani Chauhan
Parties & counsel
