Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1163 (ALL)

Parveen @ Shahana @ Chanda v. State of U. P.

2015-05-11

BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II

body2015
JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Parveen @ Shahana @ Chanda, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1233 of 2014, under Sections 363, 372, 373 I.P.C. P.S.- Ramgaon, District-Bahraich. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 02.08.2014 time unknown, while the FIR has been lodged on 06.08.2014 at 18.14 hours. It has been further contended that there is variation in statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. It has been further contended that co-accused Sonu alias Chunna has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.02.2015 passed by coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Case No.1171 (B) of 2015 and co-accused Ram Yad Kori has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.03.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 388 (B) of 2015. It is also submitted that co-accused Ram Chabiley Kori has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2015 passed in Bail No. 1092 of 2015. Last submission is that accused-applicant is in jail since 11.08.2014 having no criminal history to his credit as averred in paragraph nos. 34 and 32 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application on the ground of age of the victim. The bail granted to the co-accused persons have not been disputed. No adverse criminal history has been reported. The period of detention is also not disputed. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 6. Let applicant, Parveen @ Shahana @ Chanda, 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 with the following conditions: (i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if the witnesses are present in Court. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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; (iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.