Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1389 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar @ Sushil v. State of U. P.

2015-05-26

RANJANA PANDYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been in jail since 07.05.2015. He has no previous criminal history to his credit. The alleged occurrence is said to have committed on 22.12.2007, whereas the complaint was presented to the court on 18.03.2008 after an inordinate delay of about three months. The delay has not been explained. The accused persons have been summoned in pursuance to the complaint which was initially dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. There is no credible evidence available on record connecting the accused with the crime, hence the applicant is entitled to bail. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4. Let the applicant Sunil Kumar @ Sushil, involved in complaint case No. 746 of 2010 (Smt. Meena vs. Pappu), under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in 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 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.