SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Munish Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 19 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 31341 of 2019

Applicant :- Munish Yadav

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Munish Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 241 of 2019 under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Fareedpur, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

In respect of an incident which occurred on 26.3.2019, an F.I.R. dated 29.3.2019 was lodged by Veerendra Singh, father of the prosecutrix, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0241 of 2019 under Sectionsections 498A, Section323, Section504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

In the aforesaid F.I.R. as many as five persons excluding present applicant have been nominated as the named accused. Subsequently, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 21.4.2019 under Sectionsections 161 Cr.P.C., followed by statement of prosecutrix under Sectionsection 164 Cr.P.C. on 25.4.2019. It appears that on basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, as noted hereinabove, Sectionsection 376 was added.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is complete change in the stand of the prosecutrix in the statement as given under Sectionsections 161 and Section164 Cr.P.C. There does not exist any explanation for the same. On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.

Let the applicant Munish Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A SectionIPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A SectionIPC.

(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 THE HIM/HER 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/her 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 :- 19.8.2019

Arshad

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation