Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1475 (ALL)

Durga Shankar @ Aditya v. State of U. P.

2015-06-01

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 22 to 25 years and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears that she was a consenting party. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has earlier married with the applicant and their marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act. Copy of the marriage certificate has been annexed as annexure-6 page 50 to 51 of the affidavit. He further submits that the medical report does not confirm the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 16.2.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 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 Durga Shankar @ Aditya involved in Case Crime No. 195 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 294, 506 IPC, P.S.-Cantt., District Varanasi 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 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.