Sanjay Kumar Bind @ S. R. Bind Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18581 of 2020

Applicant :- Sanjay Ram Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shish Ram,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

The Court convened through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Narayan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶7

This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant and the same has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 14th August, 2020 by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Hence, this first bail application has come up before this Court in the fresh cause list in pursuance of an urgency application filed in the present case.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant at the very outset pointed out that the name of the applicant in the bail application has been wrongly mentioned as Sanjay Kumar Bind @ S.R. Bind in place of Sanjay Ram Bind therefore wrong name has also been mentioned in the title of the case. He prayed that the same may be corrected by the office. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to correct the name of the applicant in the bail application as soon as the Court reopens. Office is directed to correct the name of the applicant in the title of the case forthwith accordingly.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is posted in Indian Army and the incident has taken

¶10

place in a train where victim was also travelling. From perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the applicant tried to touch her leg and body with evil design. It is submitted that only on account of the suspicion, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 2nd February, 2020. He has no criminal antecedents.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor girl and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was teased by the applicant in the train.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶13

Let the applicant Sanjay Ram Bind involved in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020 under Sections 354 of Indian Penal Code and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station G.R.P., District Fatehpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and the court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the pendency of the trial with the following conditions:-

¶14

(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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court & shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by him from this Court or till the conclusion of the trial.

¶20

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within preferably a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if, there is no legal impediment.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of order

¶22

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 14.8.2020 VMA

Sanjay Kumar Bind @ S. R. Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Bind @ S. R. Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Satyapal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh @ Sairabh Pundir Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Rampal Bhartiya and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ganesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Munnu Bind Vs State of U.P.