Allahabad High Court
Imran vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54424 of 2019 Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain,Syed Riyaz Askari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
From the ossification test report received from the medical board, the age of the victim has been found to be 15-17 years by the medical board and same opinion has also been given by the CMO, Kaushambi on the basis of X'ray report of the victim.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case of false implication. The applicant and the victim both belong to the same village. The applicant was selling the boiled egg in the locality and there was dispute regarding money between the two. The victim has falsely implicated the applicant. The internal examination report of the victim does not supports the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 20.10.2019. He has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Imran, involved in Case Crime No.267 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376(2)(Jha) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Karari, District- Kaushambi 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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants 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.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
The original reports of the medical board and CMO, Kaushambi are directed to be sent back to CJM, Kaushambi by the Office in sealed envelope within a week from today.
Order Date :- 25.2.2020 SS