Allahabad High Court
Rakesh vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18621 of 2022
Applicant :- Rakesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
FIR was lodged alleging the offence and abduction of a girl with intent to marry.
Counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to the incident dated 23.11.2020, FIR was lodged on 02.02.2021. In the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant took her along with him for the purpose of providing the job. Thereafter, he left her in the company of co-accused, Raj, who was not named in the FIR and she was kept under confinement for four months by him and thereafter he left her at nithari chowki.
Counsel for the applicant also submits that the prosecution story is not credible. The victim claims herself to be 18 years in the FIR and 19 years in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no explanation why for four months she did not raised any alarm or tried to escape from the confinement of the co-accused, Raj. It is a case of false implication by the victim. Infact, she eloped with the applicant and thereafter, she has falsely implicated the applicant in the FIR. There is no explanation of delay in the FIR. The applicant is in jail since 10.09.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Rakesh, involved in Case Crime No. 44 of 2021, under Sections- 366, 368, 376 IPC, Police Station- Sector 39, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 / Rohit
