Om Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P.and another

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. S.M. Abuzar Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajendra Kumar Diwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th of October, 2010 as well as order dated 15th of December, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

By means of order dated 19th of October, 2010, petitioner has been asked to file an affidavit to the effect that victim Sneh Lata is not under his custody. By means of order dated 15th of December, 2010 a direction has been issued to dispose of the petitioner''s application of bail with the condition that on the next date he shall produce the victim Sneh Lata for evidence.

So far as the relevancy of the order dated 19th of October, 2010 is concerned, I am informed that the petitioner, being the accused, has been issued non bail able warrant, therefore, I am of the view that at the appropriate stage he could have been called upon to give such a statement before the Court concerned, but for the condition imposed by means of order dated 15th of December, 2010,1 am of the view that once | the petitioner denies that she is not under this custody he cannot be compelled to produce her, whereas the learned Court conApplicant cerned, for production of the victim, is at liberty to adopt another mode provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure under section 97 of the Cr.P.C. or elsewhere.

Therefore, the part of the order dated 15th of December, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge so far as it imposes condition on the petitioner to produce the victim Sneh Lata for evidence is hereby quashed with liberty to the learned Sessions Judge to adopt another mode as is provided under the law for production of victim.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of finally.