Despite service of notice, nobody is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned order dated29.08.2019, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow in Bail Application No.5448 of 2019 (Mufeed Ahmad Versus State of U.P.), S.T. No. 559 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 328 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow. Further a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant/applicant on bail in the said case crime.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that appellant is not named in the F.I.R. During course of investigation when the Investigating Officer collected the CCTV Footage, only in one of the footages appellant was seen. It is further submitted that main accused Mohd.Afzal Khan has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1455 of 2019. It is thus submitted that the appellant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused-applicant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 29.08.2019, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow in Bail Application No.5448 of 2019 (Mufeed Ahmad Versus State of U.P.), S.T. No. 559 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 328 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant (Mufeed Ahemad) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant/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 appellant/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 appellant/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.
(iv) The appellant/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.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 ML/-