Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Rekha Dikshit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 11339 of 2015
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
Heard Sri D.D.Verma holding brief of Sri M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri U.C.Yadav,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record..
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence. Earlier, the bail prayer of the applicant was rejected on merits by the court below on 8.9.2015. It is next contended that there is inordinate delay for about 15 days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been given. Firstly, it was stated by the informant that the alleged incident had taken place by some unknown person. Subsequently the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. named the applicant leveling the allegation of rape, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. The applicant had not enticed away the prosecutrix, but she had left her home out of her own free will. She was a consenting party. As per medical report the age of the prosecutrix was determined to be 16 years and no definite opinion was given with regard to the sexual assault on the prosecutrix. He also submits that he has no criminal history.
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 Vinod Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 339 of 2015, under sections 376 IPC and Sec.3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Manka Pur, District Gonda 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 :- 16.8.2017
IA
