Single judge granted bail to applicant charged with IPC offences and POCSO Act. Court noted >4 years jail custody and lack of expressed opinion on merits as key reasons for release.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties to satisfy court 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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2005 of 2020
Applicant :- Balloo Ram Alias Rajesh Roshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 384 of 2015, u/s 363, 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n), 376D, 342, 506, 120-B IPC and 5(G)/6, 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.
This is the second bail application. The first bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2018 considering that the victim was less than 16 years of age as per marksheet and bail was declined at that stage. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 12.1.2016 and till date statement of the victim is being recorded and at the time of rejection of first bail wrong information was provided by learned AGA that statement of the victim has already been recorded. He has further argued that the allegation of gang rape are against the applicant and his real brother and it is highly improbable that two real brothers have committed gang rape as alleged by the prosecution, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no fresh ground to grant bail to the applicant. However, he could not dispute that charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2016, however, till date only one prosecution witness has been examined and cross examination of the victim is still continuing.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and especially that the applicant is in jail since 12.1.2016 i.e. more than four years, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Balloo Ram Alias Rajesh Roshan involved
in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid trial within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order on day to day basis.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant entitled to bail considering prolonged jail remand and delay in trial
Whether fresh grounds exist for bail in the second application
Balloo Ram Alias Rajesh Roshan
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
