Allahabad High Court
Rajesh vs State Of U.P. on 20 August, 2019
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30359 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rajesh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2018 under Sections 323, 376D, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S.- Bhamaura, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
In respect of one incident which is alleged to have occurred on 8.9.2018 at 2.30 p.m., an F.I.R. dated 16.11.2018 was lodged pursuant to an order passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 347 of 2018 under Sections 323, 376D IPC and Section 3(1) (Dha) and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.
Subsequent to the aforesaid FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. followed by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the strength of the aforesaid materials, sections 504 and 506 IPC were added whereas Section 3(1) (d) and 3(2) (5) of the SC/ST Act were dropped.
Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the document at page 20 of the paper book and on the basis there of he contend that on 8.9.2018 at 12.30 p.m. the present applicant along with Prathviraj were arrested as they were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, produced before the Magistrate.
In the light of the aforesaid fact, it is urged that statement made by the prosecutrix that the incident occurred on 8.9.2018 at 2.30 p.m. is patently false as the applicant was released on bail by Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned at 3.30 p.m. He thus submits that the alleged incident has only been engineered on account of old enmity existing between the parties.
He thus submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the factual and legal submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Rajesh 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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.
10. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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 :- 20.8.2019 Manish Tripathi