HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 27
Case :- BAIL No. – 531 of 2019
Applicant :- Ravi Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar,Anuradha Singh,Bhasker Tripathi,Chandra Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. The accused applicant is innocent. There is no eyewitness to the incident. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that minimum punishment under Section 354 I.P.C. is one year and the minimum punishment under Section 7/Section8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is three years which may extend up to five years. He further submits that applicant has already in jail since 23.11.2018. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that applicant has already been incarcerated for almost a period of one year which is a minimum punishment prescribed under Section 354 I.P.C.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Ravi Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 1238/2018, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/Section8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station – Madiyaon, District – Lucknow 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 18.11.2019