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

Raj Kumar vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28048 of 2019 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra 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. 534 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 354-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Fatehabad, District Agra, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by father of the victim on 08.10.2018. As per the allegation made in the FIR it is alleged that the daughter of the informant had gone in the field for natural call in the meantime the applicant has committed misbehaviour the minor daughter of complainant attracting Section 354B IPC alone, who is aged about 17 years. thereafter the victim under the influence of her parents levelled the allegation of gang rape upon the applicant Rajkumar and Dharmendra. Her statements under Section 161 and 164 were recorded in which she has supported the prosecution version, but when her testimony was recorded before the trial court as P.W.2, she has denied all the prosecution version and has declared hostile. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2018, 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 rival submissions made by the counsels mentioned above and perusing the paper book, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie a case for bail is made out.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Raj Kumar 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. 534 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 354-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Fatehabad, District Agra, 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 :- 30.7.2019/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

Raj Kumar vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 July, 2019
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Rahul Mishra