Allowed

Gangadeen Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018BAIL/10969/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376, 452, and 506 IPC, the Single Judge held it to be a fit case for bail, noting the prosecutrix's age and married status. The court granted bail subject to strict undertakings regarding attendance and potential abortive trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; case remanded to trial court for enforcement.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10969 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gangadeen Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.S. Singh,Vishwajeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit along with medical filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 282 of 2017, under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is 52 years, she is married and having three kids. She in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement she make an allegation of rape upon the applicant. The FIR was registered after four months of the incident. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.01.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant- Gangadeen Prajapati be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 282 of 2017, under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba with the following conditions:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF

¶15

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 :- 3.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Gangadeen Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadeen Prajapati 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

Aslam Vs Sate of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar @ Mangru Vs State of U.P.

Noor Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Gauri @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P.