Allahabad High Court
Vasu Dev ( Second Bail ) vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2017
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- BAIL No. - 2121 of 2017
Applicant :- Vasu Dev ( Second Bail )
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agnihotri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A K Singh Somvanshi
Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
This is second bail application. First bail application being Crl. Misc. Case No. 622 (B) of 2017 was dismissed as withdrawn.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.1891 of 2011, under Sections 363,366, 368, 376 (2) (g) I.P.C., Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that initially in this F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. wherein the applicant was enlarged on bail by the trial court itself. But later on when the trial proceeded and statement of prosecutrix was recorded before the trial court she gave a statement to the effect that present applicant along with other co-accused persons had raped her. Then an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution to the effect that since the prosecutrix has alleged rape against her by the present applicant and other accused persons, the charge under Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C. should also be framed. Accordingly, the trial court vide order dated 24.05.2016 added Section 376 (2)(g) I.P.C. in the charges and when bail application was moved in the added section, the same was rejected by the court below, hence this bail application has been filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that during the investigation statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. where no allegation of rape was made against the applicant. However, later on during trial this allegation has been made. It is further submitted that there is mark difference between the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also stated that co-accused persons Satya Narayan and Sunil Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2017 and 08.03.2017, passed in Bail Application No. 1927 of 2017 and Bail Application No. 1997 of 2017.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Vasu Dev) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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.
Order Date :- 22.5.2017
ML/-
