Allahabad High Court
Ramjag vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. … on 9 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35062 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 644 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramjag Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Special Trial No.97/2022 arising out of Case Crime No.12/2020 under sections 354A, 354B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kurwar, District Sultanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that one FIR No.141 of 2019 was lodged by the father of applicant against Vivek Kumar Yadav and 5 Ors. under Sections 376, 312 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act, and in the said case, applicant is one of the witnesses. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against Vivek Kumar Yadav. He further submitted that complainant of the case in question is domestic servant of Vivek Kumar Yadav and only with the intention to make pressure for compromise in the aforesaid case, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant with the association of his daughter on the basis of concocted facts and to support their case, manufactured injuries were also shown in the medico-legal examination of victim. He further submitted that before lodging of the present case, applicant did not have any previous criminal history.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Musheer Alam Vs. State of UP and Ors in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.18081 of 2024 and Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 submitted that applicant had fully cooperated during the course of investigation, therefore, he was not taken into custody. Therefore, no custodial trial is necessary. In such circumstances, the anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant but he did not dispute this fact that during the course or investigation, applicant was not taken into custody.
6. Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that during the course of investigation, applicant was not taken into custody and now, the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no evident to support that applicant has ever misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant, namely,Ramjagin the aforesaid case, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of like amount with the following condition:-
(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(ii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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 IPC.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure him 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.
(vi) 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 him in accordance with law.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 9.6.2025
V. Sinha
[ad_1]
Source link