Guddu Alias Navneet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16532 of 2020

Applicant :- Guddu Alias Navneet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Guddu Alias Navneet with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-100 of 2020, under Sections-452 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police StationGangoh, District-Saharanpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections-452 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 04.03.2020, the applicant is in confinement since then;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that though the allegation of rape was made against the present applicant by the victim girl who was disclosed to be about 19 years of age (in the FIR), the said allegation was plainly false, arising on account of disapproval of the relationship that had been formed by the applicant with the alleged victim girl. Referring to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the medico legal report, it has been strenuously urged that it is clear that even at this stage, there is no occurrence of this nature described in the FIR. As to the introduction of the offence under POCSO Act, it has been submitted, the same is based solely on the medical report. As to the age of the victim, it cannot be overlooked in face of the high school certificate which indicates that the victim was just 21 days short of attaining the age of majority.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by relying on the medical report as to the age of the victim, he has further submitted that all other aspects would remain to be examined at the trial. At present, no conclusion can be drawn as to the occurrence or otherwise.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it is true that no conclusion of fact is to be recorded, at this stage, yet it cannot be lost sight of that the applicant is also claimed to be about 19 years of age and has no criminal history. In that light the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., does bear relevance for the purpose of the consideration of the bail application. Accordingly, the applicant is found to be entitled to bail though on heavy sureties.

¶16

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶17

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Guddu Alias Navneet involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court

¶23

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.

¶24

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶25

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶26

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

(viii) It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence or to even make contact with the victim either personally or through his agent or through electronic means or telephonic means or by any other means, it may result in immediate cancellation of bail being granted to the applicant, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶28

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶29

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶30

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 S.Chaurasia

Guddu Alias Navneet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Alias Navneet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sidhnath Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Himanshu Vs State of Up

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P.