Single judge granted bail to Monu in a cashiering case under IPC 354, 323, 506 and POCSO Act, directing furnishing of a personal bond and local sureties with specific conditions regarding court appearance and avoiding adjournments, citing Dataram Singh.
Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the like amount.
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. - 28284 of 2019
Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Lalji Maurya, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant -Monu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 765 of 2019, under Section 354, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sihani Gate, District-Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report has been lodged by Yashpal i.e. the cousin brother of the victim, Kumanwati against the applicant alleging therein that on 11th May, 2019, the informant and his father went to attend a marriage ceremony at Barla and his mother, wife and the victim were alone at his house. At 10:00 p.m. (night), applicant, who is neighbour of the informant, entered into his house and he beat the victim and also tried to outrage her modesty, on objection being raised, the applicant after threatening to kill ran away. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are variations in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the both the statements, nothing serious has been spoken by the victim against the applicant. The victim has also refused to get herself medically examined, which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. There is no single independent or public witness from which it is established that the applicant has committed any offence upon the victim. The applicant is innocent and due to dispute regarding drainage between the family of the applicant and the victim, the present first information report has been lodged falsely implicating the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 13th May, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has 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. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, 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:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
Sushil/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail in a case involving Section 354 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether conditions can be imposed to prevent abuse of bail and ensure appearance in court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Monu
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
