HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 47303 of 2019
Applicant :- Amol @ Anmol
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Pal,Ram Sunder Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ram Sunder Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajneesh Pandey, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Amol @ Anmol with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019, under Sections 354, Section323 I.P.C. and SEctions 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Ujhani, District-Badaun, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation of causing offence under Section 354 I.P.C against the applicant. The only allegation made against the applicant is that while co-accused, Manoj was teasing the victim, applicant along with other co-accused, namely, Sanjay and Bijendra came on the spot on the apprehension that the victim and the co-accused are doing something obscene, they caused injuries to both of them. It has been submitted that applicant can be said to have not been able to understand the conduct of the victim and the co-accused, Manoj and therefore, it has resulted into false implication of the applicant. that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. It has further been submitted that the co-accused, namely, Sanjay has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23rd October, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44403 of 2019. The case of the applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 13th August, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 6.11.2019