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

Ravindra vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|25 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29764 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.649 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4/5 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Debai, District- Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was registered by the mother of the victim against as many as four accused persons including the applicant for the alleged act of enticement of her daughter. It is next contended that the applicant and the victim got married in Arya Samaj Temple. The marriage certificate dated 20.12.2015 is annexed as Annexure-3 to the application. Not only this, they have approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2063 of 2016 titled as "Smt. Seema and others Vs. State of U.P. and others" and Division Bench of this Court has protected the interest of the couple. The next contention is that after submission of the charge sheet by the police, the proceedings of the case was stayed by filing Application U/S 482 No.25410 of 2016 titled as "Ravindra Vs. State of U.P. and another". I have perused the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has unequivocally supported the applicant and has submitted that both of them are residing as husband and wife. The applicant is in jail since 16.06.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Ravindra, involved in case crime no.552 of 2018, under Sections 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Khurja Nagar, District-Bulandshahar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE 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 HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER 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 HER, 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 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 HER 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 APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019/Sumit S
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

Ravindra vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
25 July, 2019
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Rama Shankar Mishra