Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. And ... on 19 September, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2963 of 2022 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.
Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant, respondent no. 2 to oppose the bail application.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0467 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act lodged at Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur.
3. The accused-applicant has locomotive disability from polio in both legs.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that prosecution story is that the accused-applicant and his brother enticed away the prosecutrix and took her to Lucknow where the accused-applicant raped her does not appear to be very convincing, considering physical disability of the accused-applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix lived with the accused-applicant for five days, but she did not raise any alarm After she came back, under the pressure of her family members, the FIR came to be registered. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC the prosecutrix said that it is the accused-applicant who took her on motorcycle to Lucknow, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she said that the accused-applicant and his brother took her to Lucknow. It does not appear to reason that two brothers would commit offence, as alleged in the FIR.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account physical disability of the accused-applicant, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
6. Let applicant-Anil Kumar, accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) the applicant(s) 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(s) 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(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and
(iv) the applicant(s) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.9.2022 MVS/-