Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2415 (ALL)

Maggoo v. State of U. P.

2015-08-14

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.255 of 2013, under Section 3 42 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4/5/6/9 of The Immoral Trafic (Prevention) Act, 1956 police station Kotwali, District- Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a lady with no previous criminal history and she has been falsely implicated by showing that she was organizing and abetting prostitution. It has been submitted that inference that the applicant was indulging in procurement of minor girls as also sale and purchase of girls has been drawn only on the basis that one person, namely Vinod Pandey and a girl namely, Pooja Das were recovered from a room owned and possessed by the applicant. It has been submitted that the age of Pooja Das has been determined as 19 years on the basis of her medical examination. It has next been submitted that the applicant is innocent and is in jail since 27th September, 2013 and in case of being enlarged on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant Smt. Maggoo be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice: - (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 3 13 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 her in accordance with law.