Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1815 (ALL)

Dharmendra Kumar Shilpkar v. State of U. P

2014-06-03

SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Dharmendra Kumar Shilpkar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 489 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Jai Singhpur, District Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated her age to be 18 years. She further stated that she has married with the applicant and she is pregnant with him. The applicant is in jail since 11.2.2014 and has no adverse criminal history as averred in paragraph no. 15 and 16 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed prayer for bail but has admitted the aforesaid fact situation. 5. Keeping in view the rival submissions and overall view of the matter, case for bail is made out. 6. Let applicant (Dharmendra Kumar Shilpkar) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice: - (i) The 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 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. (ii) The 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 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 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. 7. Before parting with the bail order, it is pertinent to mention here that deponent Rinku S/o Bechan, R/o Aliganj, Police Station Musafir Khana, District Amethi in his affidavit filed in support of bail application has mentioned the name of victim, which is an offence. 8. Office is directed to register a separate miscellaneous case against deponent Rinku S/o Bechan, R/o Aliganj, Police Station Musafir Khana, District Amethi and keeping in view the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Satyapal Anand Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2014 (4) SCC 800 , notice be issued to him to show cause as to why case under Section 228-A I.P.C. be not registered against him. List immediately after service of notice.