Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 901 (ALL)

Lachhiya @ Lachhi Ram v. State of U. P.

2015-04-20

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Dev, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per medical opinion, prosecutrix is 16 to 18 years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. He further submits that it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the prosecutrix as from a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has voluntarily eloped with the applicant and remained for about two months and did not make any hue and cry for her rescue. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243. The applicant is in jail since 1.6.2014. 3. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. 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 tempering 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. 5. Let the applicant Lachhiya alias Lachhi Ram, involved in Case Crime No.423 of 2014, u/s 363, 366, 506, 376 IPC, and Section 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Jariya, district Hamirpur 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. 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.