Maddu Prasad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Ali Zamin, J

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

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.313 of 2018, under Sections 364 I.P.C., Police Station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Anjali Kumari, daughter of informant Ram Kishun was married with Maddu Prasad on 24.02.2018. Informant took Anjali to his house on 5.3.2018. Applicant called her on 20.03.2018 at Tegra Mod took her in M.P. stayed in night in a Hotel, situate in Bedhan (M.P.) and in the morning boarding her in a city bus he went away, she came at 3.00 A.M. Again on 23.3.2018, applicant called her on the pretext of going to her friends house. Since then she is missing. He submits that on 28.3.2018, a missing report was lodged by the informant as well as by applicant and thereafter, relation became sour and after six months, this first information report has been lodged against the applicant.The story thereafter has been brought that applicant was talking by video call with his lover, which was witnessed by the victim, that is why victim was abducted. On 16.9.2018, statement of the shopkeeper from where a call was received has stated that the victim had come in a Car along with some other. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and is languishing in jail since 31.12.2018. He also submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Maddu Prasad involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

(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.