Allahabad High Court
Tulsi Ram Shukla Alias Daddu vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 2081 of 2021
Applicant :- Tulsi Ram Shukla Alias Daddu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Amrendra Singh, Advocate on behalf of the complainant taken on record.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not suported the prosecution story. The prosecutrix has married with the applicant. The marriage ceritficate is on record as Annexure No. 7 to the bail application. As per the educational certificate date of birth of the prosecutrix is 02.02.2003, however, her bone age according to the medical examination is between 18 to 19 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "Suhani and others Vs. State of U.P and others" passed in Civil Appeal No. 4532/2018. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2021 without having any previous criminal history.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Tulsi Ram Shukla Alias Daddu, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 376/2019, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Huzurpur, District - Bahraich, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021
R.C.
