HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 33725 of 2019
Applicant :- Amarjeet And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of private respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 13 of 2019, under Sections 354, 120-B, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, SectionIPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhimpura, District Ballia, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim herself has lodged the FIR. Initially, the allegation is of Sectionsection 354 IPC which later on swelled to Sectionsections 376, Section511 IPC without any justification. Sections 376, Section511 IPC is apparent shift in statements under Sections 161 and Section164 Cr.P.C. The age of the girl is 16 years. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.01.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicants- Amarjeet and Suraj, be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 13 of 2019, under Sections 354, Section120-B, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section376, Section511, SectionIPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhimpura, District Ballia, with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A SectionIPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A SectionIPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a 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 :- 14.10.2019