This是高級法院（Allahabad HC）对一起涉及绑架、诱拐未成年人及性虐待的保释申请的裁决。法院考虑到嫌疑人被拘留期间受害人愿意与其生活且无受害方反对等情形，认为无串供风险，遂批准其保释，但施加了多项严格保释条件。
Applicant released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding appearance in court and non-tampering.
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. - 28507 of 2021
Applicant :- Beetu @ Tutu @ Teetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Satyendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vijay Singh Sengar
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant who states that he has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the applicant in the office today i.e. 3.12.2021, Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri U.P. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Beetu @ Tutu @ Teetu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 23 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Nadigaon, DistrictJalaun.
The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged by Bhagwan Das the father of the prosecutrix naming the applicant and one unknown person as accused therein on 21.3.2021 at about 21:17 hours under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., alleging that his daughter is aged about 17 years. The applicant got the door of the house opened and then enticed away his daughter. She has taken Rs.45,000/-, one golden chain and other ornaments with her. The incident is of 21.3.2021 at about 4.00 A.M.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix was produced before the doctor where she refused her medical examination. Further it is argued that the prosecutrix remained with the applicant for two months. She was subsequently recovered on 23.5.2021 and during the said period she lived with the applicant in a temple in Rajasthan and then she travelled to one other place which she does not know. It is argued that during the said period the prosecutrix did not resist the same. It is argued that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she reiterates the version as given by her in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and states that they lived together as husband and wife. It is argued that reading of both the statements of the prosecutrix would go to show that she was
a consenting party and she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will and during the said period of two months while living in a temple, she does not raise any resistance. It is argued that since the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted, there are no chances of tempering with the evidence and pressurizing the witnesses. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-19 of the affidavit and is in jail since27.5.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation of his enticing away the daughter of the first informant. The prosecutrix has stated of the applicant taking her away and establishing physical relationship with her.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix remained with the applicant for two months in a temple without any resistance. When she went from the house after taking handsome amount of money and jewellery.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Beetu @ Tutu @ Teetu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2021 Naresh
Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.12.04 17:20:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible to be released on bail furnishing a bond and sureties.
Whether imposing specific conditions to prevent tampering and harassment justifies grant of bail.
Whether the absence of conceivnal evidence and the prosecutrix's conduct negate the necessity for preventive detention.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Beetu @ Tutu @ Teetu
State Of U.P
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
