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

Premu vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|22 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33084 of 2019 Applicant :- Premu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Verma,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A are present. Heard and perused the record of the present bail application.
This bail application has been filed by the accused Premu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 342 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur.
From the perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that F.I.R was lodged by Smt. Ram Kali in respect of incident dated 20.05.2019 at 10:00 P.M stating that both the accused persons named in the F.I.R committed rape with her minor daughter.
The submissions of the learned counsel is that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, victim has stated that brother-in-law of Premu committed rape with her and she has not mentioned the name of the accused-applicant in her statement. Further submission is that charge-sheet has not been filed against POCSO Act and, therefore, it shows that at the time of incident the victim was found to be major. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that ignoring the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C, only on the basis of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C charge-sheet has also been filed against the accused-applicant. Further it is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no evidence against him. There is no criminal history and accused-applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and personal bond as directed by the Court.
The learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has however submitted that charge-sheet has been filed but there is no charge-sheet under POCSO Act.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without commenting on merit of the case, and finding that the name of the applicant does not found mention in statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C, let the accused-applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 PS
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

Premu vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
22 August, 2019
Judges
  • Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Advocates
  • Brij Raj Verma Rajesh Kumar