Prakash Chandra Maurya v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is innocent and has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that in medical examination no injury was found on the person of the victim and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant did not commit any offence as alleged. It is also contended that there is contradiction in the contents of first information report, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as also medical evidence, which shows that a false and concocted story has been set up against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court.

The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2017. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer. Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v.

State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant- Prakash Chandra Maurya involved in Case Crime No. 226 of 2017, under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 354A, 506 IPC and 5(I)/6, 5(m)6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2018 SC 2440, if there is no legal impediment. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 18.7.2022 DS SINGH Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad