Allowed

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018BAIL/12322/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12322 of 2018, the court granted bail to Prakash Alias Ram Prakash during trial in a case under Sections 363/366/376D IPC and POCSO Act. The applicant sought bail after initially having his name dropped by the investigating agency but subsequently being summoned as a witness testifying unfavorably.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to strict conditions of presence and non-disturbance of evidence.

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12322 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prakash Alias Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 193 of 2015, under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 376D/34 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ait, District Jalaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR but during investigation his name has been dropped, it is only testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the name of the applicant has figured up consequently on 24.11.2017,learned trial court has summoned the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. He lastly submitted that the applicant whose role is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Jogendra and who has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is in jail since 21.02.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Prakash alias Ram Prakash be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 193 of 2015, under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 376D/34 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ait, District Jalaun with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

jitendra Vs state of u.p.

aas mohammad @ Aasu Vs State of U.P.

Ibney Ali Vs State of U.P.

Udaibhan Raidas Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Shobhnath and Another Vs State of U.P.