Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 22 September, 2016
Bench: Pratyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32497 of 2016
Applicant :- Rahul
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Rahul, who is involved in Case Crime No.273 of 2016, under sections 363, 366,376 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to annoyance of the first informant. According to him as per medical examination report the victim is major. She had eloped with the applicant with her own free will. The fact is reflected from the fact that the victim had taken her jewellery. He further submits that two persons were blamed for the abduction whereas from the statement of the victim only the applicant is said to have committed the crime. In the medical examination report the doctor has noted the fact regarding the incident. In fact serial no.15-A(7), these facts are variance with her statement recorded under section section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the applicant has permanent residence..He is not likely to abscond.
On behalf of State the prayer for bail has been opposed and it has been submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C has fully named the applicant for abduction and committed rape on her.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of 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, if 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 his, 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.9.2016
G.S
