HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 12
Case :- BAIL No. – 296 of 2020
Applicant :- Varun Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that radiological age of the prosecutrix is 14 years, whereas medical age is approximately 12 years. It is also submitted that the medical reports do not corroborate the prosecution story. The complainant has levelled allegation against the applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so is the case with the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.c., she has merely alleged commission of offence under Section 354 I.P.C. The statement of the witnesses mentioned in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix has not been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 09.09.2019. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further 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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No.356 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi 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 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.
Order Date :- 5.3.2020