Allowed

Babloo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018BAIL/11545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail was granted to Babloo, an accused in rape cases under IPC 376 and POCSO Act 4, at Court No. 54. The court noted the victim's denial in the section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, absence of antecedents, and imposed strict trial conditions regarding attendance and arrest clauses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including attendance and prohibition on seeking adjournments.

Babloo Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11545 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Nath Rai,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brajesh Nath Rai and Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that though the victim is eleven years of age but in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has totally denied the allegation of rape upon her against the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶7

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.

¶8

Keeping in view the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 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

¶9

applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Babloo, involved in Case Crime No.15 of 2018, under sections 376 IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, P.s. Khanna, 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN

¶15

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 HIM 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 bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 5.4.2018

¶18

shailesh

Babloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo 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.

Udaibhan Raidas Vs State of U.P.

Shobhnath and Another Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Alias Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.