Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1472 (ALL)

Akib Javed @ Bittu v. State of U. P.

2015-06-01

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Sri S.P.K. Tripathi, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri A.K. Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the medical examination report of the victim, she is aged about 18 years and as per school certificate she is stated to be seventeen years and ten months. He further submitted that the estimated age of a person as opined by the doctor, is always subject to two years' margin or error or relaxation on both sides. From the perusal of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears that she was a consenting party. She has voluntarily eloped with the applicant but did not raise any alarm for her rescue. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not corroborate her medical report. The applicant is in jail since 25.4.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 6. Let the applicant Akib Javed @ Bittu, involved in Case Crime No.1411/2014, u/s 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kuber Sthen, district Kushi Nagar 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 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. 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 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.