Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2018BAIL/12561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, this court allowed the release of the applicant on his personal bond and two sureties. The applicant faced charges of enticement and abduction of a minor, whom he had married. The court imposed strict conditions to ensure his presence and prevent delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions of appearance and no adjournment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12561 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary filed on behalf of the applicant today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vidya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The FIR was registered the father of the prosecutrix on 22.08.2017 under sections 363 and 366 IPC after 13 days of the alleged incident by the father of the prosecutrix with the allegations that the applicant has enticed away his daughter.

¶8

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has candidly stated that on her own volition and accord she has joined the company of the applicant-Arun as both of them were flinged with each other for last few years but the family members of the victim were not inclined to solemnize their marriage rather her family members used to maltreat her on this account. The alleged

¶9

victim and applicant Arun solemnized their marriage on 07.09.2017 in a Shiv Temple at Moradabad out of their own sweet will. The victim has claimed her age to be 19 years in both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and desired that she wants to live with the applicant and does not want to return back to her parents. According to the radiological report the victim is opined to be about 18 years. The applicant along with five others also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18737 of 2017, wherein vide order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench, they were granted interim relief In The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant Arun, involved in Case Crime No. 467 of 2017, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Chandausi, District

¶13

Sambhal 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

¶18

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.

¶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. Order Date :- 25.4.2018

¶21

shailesh

Arun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Tinkoo @Manjesh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Jaishwal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Sita Ram Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Pawanraj Chauhan Vs State of U.P.