Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2014
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40084 of 2014
Applicant :- Om Prakash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Pratap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the real brother of co-accused Chandrapal and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the said relationship. He further submits that as per the medical examination report of the victim, she is a major girl aged about 19 years. He further submits that as per 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix, there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, though in 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix there is allegation of rape against the applicant but the medical examination report of the victim does not corroborate her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 3.9.2014.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
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-Om Prakash involved in Case Crime No.188 of 2014, under Sections 376Gha, 504,506 I.P.C. and under Section 4 & 5 (Chha) of POCSO Act, Police Station Shishgarh, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Chandrapal.
Order Date :- 21.11.2014
NS
