Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34565 of 2020

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 254 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C., Police Station- Kanth, District- Shahjahanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 18.4.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that father of the victim has lodged the first information report after two days of the incident against applicant and two others for the alleged act of enticement of his daughter aged about 17 years. The victim was recovered on 17.4.2020. Though, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim the applicant has been attributed the role of alleged enticement, but she has not spelled out a single word against the applicant for outraging her modesty. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on account of previous animosity the name of the applicant has been dragged in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 22.5.2020 i.e. after about one month and five days of the incident. There is a major shift in the stand of the victim. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the role of rape has been attributed to the applicant. For the first time, the name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for obvious reason. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from other co-accused Gappu and Sonpal against whom the consistent stand of gang rape has been attributed by the victim in her statement.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the

¶10

parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sonu , who is involved in Case Crime No. 254 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C., Police Station- Kanth, District- Shahjahanpur, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A I.P.C.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 I.P.C.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶19

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.12.2020

¶24

Vikas

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Devanand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arajun Shah @ Pauaa Shah Vs State of U.P.

Ramasre Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Hani @ Abhimanyu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kadeer Vs State of U.P.