Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam vs State Of U.P. on 3 July, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107684 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50241 of 2023 Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.77 of 1986, under Sections 376, 120-B, 342, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
3. As per prosecution story, informant Mrs. Taradevi lodged and FIR to the effect that on 17.04.1986, at around 12.00 noon, her daughter, aged about 14-15 years, had gone to the nearby house to clean the plaster on the house being built. She had gone to the pit to fetch water, her daughter told her that while filling water, suddenly Shivram, Premraj son of Jasmat and Radhe Shyam son of Tikam came out from the nearby pomegranate trees. Shivram caught hold of her from behind and Premraj and Radhe Shyam closed their mouths. All the three accused persons dragged her to Ram Singh Pradhan's house, where Premraj took off her kurta and tied both her hands behind her back with her dupatta. The scarf was stuffed tightly into the mouth. Premraj and Radhe Shyam went out, Shivram held the girl with one hand, closed the living room door with the other hand and locked it from inside, then Shivram forcibly raped her.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is aged about 65 years old person. He submits that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that there are three accused-applicant out of them, two persons, namely, Shivram died on 5.8.1990 and Premraj died on 10.2.2021. He further submits that during investigation, Investigating Officer found nothing against the applicant and submitted final report before the court below but the court below did not accept the final report and summoned the applicant vide its order dated 13.12.2002 and against the said order, the applicant moved a revision before the court below which was rejected on 10.3.2003. Thereafter, the applicant approached before this Court in Criminal Writ No. 1556 of 2003 (Prem Raj & Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.3.2003 stayed the further proceedings till the next date of listing, thereafter, on 10.7.2015 the said writ was dismissed for non prosecution. The applicant surrendered before the court below on 26.10.2023 and since then the applicant is in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded before the Magistrate. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only, in which, she has stated that Shivram had committed rape upon her and Premraj and Radhey Shyam had helped him. He further submits that as per medical report, the victim was aged about 18 years at the time of incident. There is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. He submits that no witnesses have been examined till date. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2023 having no criminal history.
5. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
7. Let the applicant- Radhey Shyam, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(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 her under Section 229-A IPC.
(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 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 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Krishna*