Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh @ Aman Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.And Another on 6 November, 2019
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46844 of 2019 Applicant :- Amar Singh @ Aman Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.97 of 2019, under Sections 376, 363, 342, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant and the victim were engaged and their marriage is going to solemnized in very near future but on account of some misunderstand cropped up between them. The father of the girl has lodged the FIR under Section 354 and other allied section of the IPC. The age of the victim as per ossification comes around 17+ years. She in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time she has levelled the allegation of sexual assault upon her but facts remains that she has declined to get herself medically examined, so as to ascertain the factum of rape upon her. There are number of cases to this effect whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that it is risky to blindly rely upon the 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.. The applicant is in jail since 21.06.2019 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Taking into view that she has refused to get herself medically examined and the FIR got registered under Section 354 only besides the other section of the IPC and they are going to marry.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant-Amar Singh @ Aman Chaudhary, 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 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 SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Abhishek Sri.