Allahabad High Court
Golu @ Prashant vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158243 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34586 of 2023 Applicant :- Golu @ Prashant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for first informant.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Golu @ Prashant seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.374 of 2011, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, police station Dibiyaur, district Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 16.11.2011, a delayed first information report dated 19.11.2011 was lodged by first informant, namely, Smt. Zuma Begum (mother of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.374 of 2011, under Sections 376, 504 506 IPC, police station Dibiyapur, district Auraiya.
After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC (final report) dated 25.11.2011. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the first informant against the said police report, which was allowed by the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 06.08.2013 and it was directed that the matter shall proceed as a State case. This order was challenged by the applicant by means of a revision before the court below, which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-23, Auraiya vide order dated 16.04.2016. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 CrPC No.25843 of 2018 challenging the orders dated 06.08.2013 and 16.04.2016 passed by the court below. This Court vide order dated 01.08.2018 passed an interim order in favour of applicant. However, subsequently the application came to be decided finally vide order dated 17.02.2023.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the above-mentioned criminal case. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the matter was duly investigated in terms of Chapter XII CrPC and the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceeding was not found to be proved. Accordingly, the police report was submitted in favour of the applicant. The applicant has been summoned by the court below on the basis of protest petition filed by first informant. He further contends that up to this stage, no such material has merged on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that applicant is prima facie guilty of committing the crime in question. However, the occurrence is about eleven years old. Up to this stage, the trial itself has not yet commenced as no prosecution witnesses has been examined. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that no useful purpose shall be served in maintaining the custodial arrest of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 07.07.2023. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing the first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that Investigating Officer after investigating the concerned case crime has submitted the police report (final report) in favour of the applicant, applicant has been summoned by the court below on the basis of an order passed by the court below on the protest petition filed by the first informant, prima facie, up to this stage, there is no evidence on record to establish the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question, no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel representing first informant necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of the applicant, period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Golu @ Prashant, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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.
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 :- 7.8.2023.
Rks.