Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Arif (Second Bail ... vs State Of U.P. on 19 November, 2019
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- BAIL No. - 9345 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohammad Arif (Second Bail Application) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Pandey,Riyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
This is second bail application. First bail application has been rejected vide order dated 12.07.2019, as contained in annexure No.1 to this bail application.
Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the prosecutrix was in relationship with the accused-applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the photographs of prosecutrix with the applicant, which are on record. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she has gone with the applicant on her own sweet will. However, later on she given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made improvement. Applicant has no previous criminal history. He is in jail since 20.10.2018.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
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 for the period for which he is in jail, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Mohammad Arif, involved in Case Crime No.925 of 2018, under Sections 363,366,354,342 of I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Mandion, District - Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 19.11.2019 Reena/-