Allahabad High Court
Dharmraj Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- BAIL No. - 1377 of 2021
Applicant :- Dharmraj Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Dharmraj Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.369/2020, under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mill Area, District Raibarelli.
Learned A.G.A. is to protest the bail plea on the basis of instructions and copy of case diary with him.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Raibarelli vide order dated 15.01.2021. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A.
Learned counsel on reading over the first information report dated 23.10.2020 lodged by the brother of victim submits that the complainant-brother has himself admitted that her sister was continuing in love affairs with the accused-applicant, with whom she left home. Learned counsel further submits that on lodging the F.I.R., when the victim and accused-applicant became aware of the criminal proceeding, they came back and thus recovered by the local police.
Learned counsel further submits that so far as taking out from the guardianship of the brother is concerned, statements under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer after recovery of the girl-victim is relevant wherein without any contradiction, the victim has stated that she herself left the home after getting knowledge of the fact that her guardians are not in agreement with her to marry her with the accused-applicant and wanted to get her married with somebody else and under the compulsion, she left the home to live with accused-applicant who was at that time in Delhi.
In the above context, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submits that the incident is without any criminal intent on the part of accused-applicant but so far as the victim is about 16 years old, the offence by virtue of statutory provision is arraigned against him.
Learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant has no criminal antecedent, is a common man of locality and is not in a position to flee away from the process of the Court, if he is released on bail, rather, it wold be helpful in putting his defence before the trial court.
On the basis of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submits that the accused-applicant deserves to be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits on the basis of instructions received to him that in the case diary, there is a school leaving certificate of class 8, wherein date of birth of the victim is entered as 12.08.2004, as such, at the date of incident, when the victim left her house on the inducement of accused-applicant from Anand Vihar, Delhi in telephonic conversation, would amount offence under Section 363, 366 of I.P.C.
However, learned A.G.A. has not rebutted any fact as averred in the bail-application and in the argument of learned counsel for the bail-applicant with regard to the love affairs wherein the accused-applicant and the victim-girl were continuing. This is also not denied that the girl herself left her house from bicycle, thereafter, traveled through tempo to the Raibareli and from there, she boarded on bus to Anand Vihar, Delhi lonely without the assistance of anybody else.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Let applicant (Dharmraj Yadav), involved in Case Crime No.369/2020, under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mill Area, District Raibarelli be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 misuse 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 applicants 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 :- 3.2.2021
Saurabh
