Allowed

Avnis Rajput v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018BAIL/11199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 376 and 504 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court accepted submissions that the victim was a consenting adult based on the high school certificate age and voluntariness, but did not express an opinion on the merits of the case while finding it fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-misconduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11199 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Avnis Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 1400 of 2017, under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the highschool certificate the age of the prosecutrix is 23 yeas. It is submitted that the applicant has established physical relation on account of giving a sham promise of getting married with her but lateron he wriggled out. She is having a physical relationship for last six years and keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix, she appears to be a consenting party and has surrenders before the applicant on her own accord and volition on account of promise extended by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 (1) SCC 88 and Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 6 . He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.02.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Avnis Rajput 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. 1400 of 2017, under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.,

¶14

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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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. Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Avnis Rajput v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnis Rajput 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atiqur Rahman Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Indu Bala Vs Dhan Prakash Agrawal

Sandev Dubey and Others Vs Ram Piyari and Others

Bhure Vs State of U.P.

Jagatpal Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Keshore @ Babua Vs State of U.P.