Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16148 of 2019 Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the courts below to accept fresh bail bonds on behalf of the applicant under newly added section 7/8 POCSO Act, in Spl. T. No. 147 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2017, under sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bichhawan, District-Mainpuri, in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Mainpuri.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 07.04.2017 impugned FIR was lodged as case crime no. 102 of 2017, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, at P.S. Bichhawan, District Mainpuri, against the applicant. Pursuant to aforesaid FIR, the applicant was granted bail on 13.04.2017, under Section 354, 504, 506 IPC, passed by Incharge Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mainpuri. It is submitted that since the applicant has already been granted bail in same case crime number, therefore, liberty should be given to him to furnish fresh bail bond under newly added section 7/8 POCSO Act and suitable direction be issued to the court concerned to permit the applicant to remain on bail on furnishing fresh bail bond by the applicant to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that there is no statutory provision under Cr.P.C. for permitting the accused to remain on bail under the newly added section only on furnishing fresh bail bond or or same bail bond.
I have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned cousnel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the applicant made in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted because in this case, nature of offence has been altered to and aggravated from minor offence to major offence. It is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Prahlad Singh Bhathi Vs. N.C.T., Delhi and another 2001 (42) ACC 903 that with the change nature of the offence, the accused becomes dis-entitled to liberty granted to him or her in relation to minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. The Apex Court further held that in such case the accused shall apply the regular bail before the concerned trial court and the same shall be decided and disposed of on its merit keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down in the said judgment.
In view of above observation, I find that the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit, it is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 v.k.updh.