Allowed

Udaibhan Raidas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018BAIL/10166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, the court accepted submissions that the applicant was falsely implicated and the受害者 was a consenting partner. The court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, imposing strict conditions on attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Udaibhan Raidas Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10166 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Udaibhan Raidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 105 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 IPC, P.S. Kurana, District- Hamirpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the father of the victim has lodged belated FIR of 21 days under sections 363, 366 IPC against the applicant and one more person with the allegation that his daughter is missing along with Rs. 70,000/- and other valuable armaments. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention that she is illiterate. As per radiological report her age is 20 years thereafter both of them appears before the S.P. Rewadi (Haryana) where both of them conceded that they are married couple but the parents of both parties are not agreeable of the marriage. She remain in the company of the applicant for five good months and came back to her parents after five months and then in the custody of her parents she has recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she somersaulted by 180 degree, making allegation of rape against the applicant. She is a major girl. She remain five months in the company of the applicant according to her own free will. There is no plausible or reasonable justification as to how and what circumstances she remain in the company of the applicant. She appears to be a consenting party. Besides this, both of them are "husband and wife" as per agreement of marriage dated 11.04.2018 which is annexed as annexure-2 to the affidavit. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.09.2017 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the

¶10

aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Udaibhan Raidas , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Nisha

Udaibhan Raidas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaibhan Raidas 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.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Shobhnath and Another Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.