Case Law Details
Indresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by the applicant in connection with F.I.R. No. 594 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ishanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
At the outset, the Court took on record the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant. The Court heard the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, and the counsel for the complainant, and also examined the material available on record.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Sets Aside Bail as Parity with Co-Accused Cannot Override Heinous Nature of Offence
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted that during the investigation, the victim’s statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and in those statements she had not supported the prosecution’s version of events. The applicant further contended that the investigation had already culminated in the filing of a charge sheet, thereby eliminating any possibility of tampering with evidence.
The applicant also emphasized that he had no criminal antecedents and had remained in judicial custody since 17 December 2022. It was submitted that, in these circumstances, he was entitled to be released on bail. Assurance was also given that the applicant would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate fully in the proceedings.
The learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and the counsel representing the complainant strongly opposed the prayer for grant of bail. However, they did not dispute the factual position that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., had not supported the prosecution case.
After considering the rival submissions, examining the contents of the F.I.R., the bail application, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and other relevant documents placed on record, the Court formed the view that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application was allowed. The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions. The applicant was directed not to commit any offence similar to the one for which he stood accused. He was further restrained from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case with a view to discouraging disclosure of facts before the Court or the police, and from tampering with evidence.
The Court also required the applicant to file an undertaking that he would not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses were present. Any default in this regard could be treated by the trial court as an abuse of the liberty of bail.
The applicant was directed to remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In the event of absence without sufficient cause, proceedings under Section 229-A IPC could be initiated against him.
The Court further observed that if the applicant misused the liberty of bail and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. became necessary to secure his presence, failure to appear pursuant to such proclamation could result in proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.
Additionally, the applicant was required to remain personally present before the trial court on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Deliberate absence on these occasions could also be treated as misuse of the liberty of bail.
The Court clarified that any violation of the conditions imposed would amount to misuse of bail, and the trial court would be free to pass appropriate orders, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 594 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Ishanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she has not supported the prosecution version. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 17.12.2022. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but they do not dispute the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Application stands allowed.
Let applicant -Indresh Kumar be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 594 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Ishanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
2. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office or tamper with the evidence.
3. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
4. 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 229A IPC.
5. 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. may be issued and if 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.
(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on 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.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Author Bio
