Allahabad High Court
Manoj vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- BAIL No. - 1926 of 2021
Applicant :- Manoj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State are present in the Court.
The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant- Manoj, who is involved in Case Crime No.220/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 & 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Behta Muzawar, District - Unnao.
The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail-plea of the accused-applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Unnao vide order dated 21.01.2021. Copy of the bail-application has already been received in office of learned G.A.
Learned A.G.A. for the State informs that he has received the instructions alongwith C.D. and material papers from the prosecution. Since the learned counsel for the bail-applicant presses to argue the matter instantly, therefore, learned A.G.A. is also ready to protest the bail-plea.
Reading over the first information report lodged on 20.11.2020, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted the prosecution case, emerging from the first information report that, it is complained by the informant on 20.11.2020 at about 11:00 A.M., his daughter alongwith daughter of one Sher Singh went to Bangarmau for shopping but did not return back. After some time, when the complainant asked from the daughter of Sher Singh the whereabout of his daughter, she informed that his daughter gone to her maternal uncle's home.
In the above context, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. against unknown person but the police has submitted charge sheet under Section 363, 366, 342, 323, 506 of I.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim was recovered alone on 27.11.2020 by the local police when she was coming from village Sarehri, on an auto rickshaw (tempo) and the applicant was not with her at the time of recovery.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2020 by the Investigating Officer, it is stated that the accused-applicant called her through mobile phone at Bilgram from Bangarmau, from where he took her forcibly to Delhi, thereafter, to Rajasthan, where she was kept in a room for 4-5 days, where the brother of the accused-applicant was also present, who used to torture her. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, reiterated her statement.
Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-applicant has not kidnapped the victim, in fact, she went alongwith the accused-applicant with her own consent without any pressure or fear, as she was continuing in love affairs with the accused-applicant, but her parents were not in agreement to marry her with the accused-applicant. The victim was medically examined on 02.12.2020 and as per report, she was found to be of 19 years old, neither any sign of sexual violence was found on her body nor there is any opinion of rape.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submitted that the accused-applicant is a local resident, is not in a position to flee away from the process of court, even there is no previous criminal history, is willing to face the trial, if released on bail and will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
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 (Manoj), involved in Case Crime No.220/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 & 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Behta Muzawar, District Unnao be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 :- 11.2.2021
Gaurav/-
