Allahabad High Court
Chaitu vs State Of U.P. on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- BAIL No. - 1668 of 2021
Applicant :- Chaitu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No. 751 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 35 I.P.C., Police Station - Nighasan, District - Kheri.
3. The occasion of present bail application arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Session Judge, Kheri vide order dated 19.12.2020. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant reading over the F.I.R. submitted that the informant mother of the victim lodged the FIR against co-accused Ramu alleging that he has enticed and taken away her daughter (victim) from the house.
5. Learned counsel further drew attention towards the statement recorded by Investigating Officer on recovery of the girl on 30.09.2020, wherein she discloses that after having a quarrel with her mother, the victim left the house, with a view to get same job in Dehradun, where many villagers were going for the said purpose. She went to Dehradun, where Ramu, to whom she was aware because of his being a native villager and in her acquaintance since early. She stayed with him.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that till then the name of the present accused-applicant has never been referred either by the informant or the victim. When she was produced before the Magistrate for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 03.10.2020, she made an improvement by adding the name of present accused-applicant assigning him role of forcibly taken her away from the home to carry her to Dehradun. She was handed over by the court to the custody of mother (the informant).
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the girl herself named Ramu only for making sexual contact with her during the said period, otherwise the present accused-applicant is not assigned any role with regard to Section 376 I.P.C. The role is assigned only to lift her away from her home on the instruction of Ramu. Learned counsel submitted that contradiction in the two statements namely under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mades the version of the victim unreliable.
8. Further, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present accused-applicant had no any criminal antecedent and is a common man, incapable to flee away from the process of the court, if he is released on bail, rather it would be helpful in putting defence efficaciously by him during the course of trial. He further submits that on similar circumstances co-accused/Indresh has already been granted bail vide order dated 03.02.2021 passed passed by this Court in Bail No. 1326 of 2021, so the same benefit may also be given to the present applicant on the ground of parity.
9. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the victim is a major girl of 18 years and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. coupled with the informant's version under the F.I.R. are sufficient to enter her having love affair with the co-accused, Ramu and she herself left the home. The accused-applicant is falsely implicated in the case.
10. Countering the allegations of learned counsel for the bail applicant, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions received to him with copy of case diary submitted that the accused-applicant is arraigned with the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 with the aid of Section 35 of I.P.C. as he has knowledge for what purpose he is adding the co-accused Ramu in lifting away the victim, as such suo moto fell under liability of the offence committed by the other accused.
11. Learned A.G.A. further has no rebuttal to the fact that victim girl is having the age of majority of 18 years on the basis of school certificate available in the case diary received by him. He further not denied that the present accused-applicant having no criminal antecedent. It is also pertinent to note that the medical examination papers available in the CD show that the complainant's mother as well as the victim herself refused to get examined privately.
12. 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.
13. Looking into the role, complicity of the accused-applicant in the offence, the prima facie case without making any comment as to the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
14. Let applicant (Chaitu) involved in Case Crime No. 751 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 35 I.P.C., Police Station - Nighasan, District - Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond 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 their 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.
15. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 9.2.2021/Ravi/
