Allowed

Jagpreet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018BAIL/11185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant Jagpreet involved in an offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The court found a prima facie case for bail despite the nature of the charge, subject to specific conditions to ensure adequate trial attendance and prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in an amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to strict conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11185 of 2018 Applicant :- Jagpreet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deependra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

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

¶4

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 223 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶5

Submission made by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the present FIR was registered by the victim herself under Sections 376 and 506 IPC after 14 days of the incident against the applicant with the allegation that she is working in a private concerned for job placement about two years back. There was a infatuation between them and taking of the advantage of this relationship she alleges that the applicant has taken some objectionable snaps and video and has started blackmailing her. Her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded after 7 days of the lodging of FIR. As per radiological report her age is 25 years. She is a well educated and working girl. In the totality of the circumstances it appears that she might have gone liberal in her dealings with the applicant which was exploited by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 02.02.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶6

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

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.

¶8

Let the applicant Jagpreet, involved in case crime no. 223 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad, 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:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON,

¶13

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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 VKG

Jagpreet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagpreet 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin @ Patram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Munna Alias Ali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P.