Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40982

of 2021

Applicant :- Jeetpal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant

and learned A.G.A. for State, who are connected virtually.

Perused the record.

This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Jeetpal

seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.652 of 2015,

under sections 363, 366, 376, 174A I.P.C. and sections 3/4

POCSO Act, Police Station- Zarifnagar, District- Budaun,

during pendency of trial.

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to

have occurred on 11.10.2015, a delayed F.I.R. dated 31.10.2015

was lodged by first informant- Mathura Prasad and was

registered as Case Crime No.652 of 2015, under section 363

I.P.C., Police Station- Zarifnagar, District- Budaun. In the

aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Jeetpal (applicant

herein), Somveer and Doodhpal have been nominated as named

accused.

Subsequent to aforesaid first information report, the statement

of prosecutrix was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., which

was on record as Annexure - 3 to the affidavit. This was

followed by the medical examination of the prosecutrix, which

is on record as Annexure - 4 to the affidavit. Ultimately, the

statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164

Cr.P.C., which is on record as Annexure - 5 to the affidavit.

Vide order dated 08.11.2021, notice was issued to opposite

party-2 i.e. first informant.

Office has submitted a report dated 20.12.2021 stating therein

that notice has been served upon opposite party-2 i.e. first

informant personally. However, in respect of service of notice,

no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is

innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned

case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and

concocted. It is next contended that prosecutrix in her statement

under section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution

story as unfolded in the F.I.R. As per the statement of

prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she is major and

she is a consenting party. Applicant and prosecutrix have

solemnized marriage. Applicant is in jail since 25.02.2021. As

such, he has undergone more than 11 months of incarceration.

Applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no

criminal history to his credit except the present one. In case,

applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of

bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid

premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is

liable to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for

bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal

submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for

State, upon perusal of record, complicity of accused,

accusations made and without making any comments on the

merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

Accordingly, this application for bail is allowed.

Let the applicant Jeetpal be released on bail in aforesaid case

crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court

concerned with the following conditions which are being

imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE

EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

(ii) THE APPLICANT