Allahabad High Court
Raksha Ram vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 7109 of 2013
Applicant :- Raksha Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Mishra,Amar Singh,Rajendra Prasa Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Mohan Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the supplementary report of the victim, she is a major girl aged about 18 years. From a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has not stated that she was subjected to rape by the applicant and other co-accused persons and did not identify the applicant and co-accused persons and has only stated the name of the village where the applicant and other co-accused persons reside which appears to be vague. He argued that she appears to be consenting party with any of the accused and so far as injuries received by her are concerned, it appears that she was seen by the villagers in a compromising position with any of the accused and she was beaten along with the applicant and the other co-accused person. He submitted that the doctor has opined that no definite opinion of rape can be given. He submits that co-accused Ram Gopal, who is said to have fled away from the place of occurrence has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.7.2014 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5782 of 2013. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 7.5.2013.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Copy of bail order of aforesaid co-accused has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant which is taken on record..
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 Raksha Ram involved in Case Crime No. 78 of 2013 under Sections 376-Gha I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, police station Tarabganj, District Gonda be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy 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 trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 15.5.2015
shiraz
