Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Imran vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27599 of 2019 Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Ray Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 144 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by Shiv Kumar Chaurasiya, father of the victim, mentioning therein that his daughter, aged about 16 years, enticed away by the applicant. He next submitted that the police has recovered the victim on 09.03.2019 and the police has recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that she went with the applicant to Unnao and thereafter went to Mumbay and residing there in the house of his sister and made physical relationship with the applicant on her own volition. As per the High School Certificate, her age is 16 years at the time of incident, but her conduct shows that she is consenting party and she lived with the company of the applicant for 26 good days on her own volition. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.03.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Imran be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 144 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar,, with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019/v.k.updh.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Imran vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 July, 2019
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Anil Kumar Ray