Allahabad High Court
Bodhraj @ Akhilesh vs State Of U.P. on 6 April, 2022
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3084 of 2021 Applicant :- Bodhraj @ Akhilesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. B.P. Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2020 in Case Crime No. 230 of 2020, under Sections- 376, 342, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sandi, District- Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
The attention has been drawn of this Court towards the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegations have been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant but the charge-sheet has been filed only against the present applicant. As per the FIR, the incident is dated 17.11.2019, however, the FIR was registered on 11.07.2020 after the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. being filed. In such application, the learned Magistrate has directed for investigation and FIR on 06.03.2020.
Mr. Nigam has submitted that there is no plausible explanation given regarding inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix is a young lady of 25 years and as per her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No. 2), she has stated that the applicant has brought her to Himachal where he committed rape with her. She has also stated that when she called her nephew- Vinod and he came there, the applicant threatened Vinod to the effect that if anything bad happens with the prosecutrix Vinod will have to face dire consequences.
Further, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No. 4), she has narrated same story and when she was asked a pin pointed question about the date when the applicant brought her to Chandigarh, she apprised that she does not remember the date. On being further asked as to whether she had raised any alarm when the applicant had brought her to Chandigarh, she stated that she did not raise any alarm. Further on being asked about raising of alarm at Chandigarh, she sated that she did not raise any alarm, however, the allegation of beating up has been levelled against the present applicant.
Further, attention has been drawn to Annexure No. 5 which is the statement of an independent witness who is known to the applicant and the prosecutrix wherein such witness has stated that he had seen that the present applicant has taken the prosecutrix with him as the applicant and prosecutrix were friends, however, the prosecutrix was a married woman.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Nigam submitted that this is not a case where the ingredients of Section 375 IPC are attracted. Therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case and there is no apprehension of absconding the present applicant or tempering with the evidence if he is released on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the fact that the contents of FIR as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also considering the fact that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Bodhraj @ Akhilesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(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. is issued and the applicant fail 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Santosh/-