Allowed

Ajju @ Ajay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018BAIL/10475/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 452, 376, 354(k), 504, 506 IPC, the High Court granted bail, citing a highly belated FIR, lack of medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the victim's delayed statements suggesting consent. Bail was granted against a personal bond and two sureties with conditions for timely trial and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions for prompt trial.

Ajju @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10475 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ajju @ Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime no.26 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 354 (ka), 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim is the informant of the FIR. A highly belated FIR was registered after 14 days of the incident under section 452/354 (A)/504/506 IPC against the present applicant with allegations that applicant used to tease her and on the fateful night, he barged into the house in the absence of her husband and started doing all sorts of crazy activities against her and when she resisted, he extended threat for life. She herself states that her age is 25 years. There is no possible justification for this inordinate delay of 14 days. Her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 28.01.2018 in which she almost has reiterated the entire version of FIR and in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C which was recorded on 03.02.2018 after 24-25 days, she has stated that on 12.01.2018, around 12.30 pm in the night, she was lying all alone and her husband went to agricultural field for irrigation purposes. She has not bolted the door from inside and the applicant entered into the house and started outraging her modesty.

¶8

In the totality of the circumstances, unless and until the applicant is not been shared the information by the victim herself in the odd hours of the night of June, 2018, nobody can dare to enter into the house. It is a perfect understanding between them by conduct.

¶9

In these circumstances, she appears to be consenting party of the entire incident and thus, the applicant is entitled for bail. She is major and registration of FIR is not supported by any medical.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant Ajju @ Ajay involved in Case Crime no.26 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 354 (ka), 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba be released on bail 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:-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(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 IPC.

¶16

(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., 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.

¶17

(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

¶18

OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(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.

¶20

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Madhurima

Ajju @ Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajju @ Ajay 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

Babu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Rahul Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.

Iqubal Vs State of U.P.