Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1563 (ALL)

Sonu Rajpoot @ Vijay v. State of U. P.

2015-06-17

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the accused- applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sonu Rajpoot @ Vijay in Case Crime No. 390 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Bahraich. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim- prosecutrix Shalu accompanied Sonu Rajpoot on her own accord and she was not forced by the accused- applicant. She has stated that she is inclined to marry with him. She further stated that Sonu has not fault with her. The age of prosecutrix is 16 years whereas according to medical examination report, it has been mentioned between 18 to 19 years. This fact has been mentioned in the rejection of the bail order by the Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 3, Bahraich. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both sides, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail. 5. Let the accused-applicant Sonu Rajpoot @ Vijay be admitted to bail in the aforesaid case crime on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking that he shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the case. (ii) The applicant shall also 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 the 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. (iii) 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 IPC. (iii) 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 IPC. (iv) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 IPC. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) 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.