Allahabad High Court
Jagga @ Ram Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5772 of 2019
Applicant :- Jagga @ Ram Prakash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- G.D. Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri G.D. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Upadhaya, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 189 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376D of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Srinagar, District Mahoba.
As per prosecution case, on 27.9.2017, FIR was lodged by Smt. Beni Bai, mother of the prosecutrix, alleging in it that since 21.9.2017 her minor daughter is missing. She has further stated that she came to know that it is the applicant and other co-accused persons who have taken her somewhere. Based on this FIR, offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO was registered against as many as four persons. After about three months, the prosecutrix returned to her village and then her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution. During the period of three months, the prosecutrix has visited so many places in the company of applicant without offering any protest or resistance. It has been argued that there is no legally admissible evidence showing the prosecutrix to be minor and it is a case of love affair between the prosecutrix and one of the accused. It has been further argued that the co-accused Ramcharan @ Guddu and Rakesh Pal have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 3.8.2018 and 31.5.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 28960, 23727 of 2018 respectively. It has been further pointed out that the applicant is in jail since 20.4.2018 and the trial may take sometime for its final disposal, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.
Considering the nature of allegation against the applicant and further considering the fact that the similarly placed co-accused have already been granted bail, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Jagga @ Ram Prakash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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 date 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 I.P.C.
(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
AKK
