Allowed

Shitesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018BAIL/12655/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted bail to Shitesh Chauhan charged under IPC and POCSO sections. The court held it a fit case for bail as the victim was a consenting major girl of 16 years residing with the applicant as husband and wife, expected to deliver in July 2018.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail after executing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearances and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12655 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shitesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.M.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K.Shahi, who filed vakalatnama on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant and 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. 260 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376Kha IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present FIR was registered by Reeta Devi, mother of the victim on 19.08.2017 for the incident which is said to have been taken place on 17.08.2017 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC with the allegation in the FIR that on 07.08.2017 around 5.00 p.m. her daughter Anjali (14 years) went to attend the call of the nature and after considerable time when she did not return back and her whereabouts were not known, this FIR was registered against Sitesh Chauhan, the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim girl was recovered and she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 01.01.2018, she did not support the prosecution version. She in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that her mother works as Assistant and was employed in some private job. She herself has stated that she is 16 years of age and on the fateful day she went to Gauri Bazar and from where she joined the company of applicant and went to Bikaner, where they got married in a temple and since then they are residing as

¶8

husband and wife and established a physical relationship. Now she is pregnant of four months and on 29.12.2017 while coming back from Bikaner to Deoria near Baitalpur station the police has arrested her and sent her for medical examination. Even in 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was recorded on 12.01.2018 she reiterated the same version and wants to resides with her husband the present applicant. As per certificate provided by C.M.O., Deoria she as per ossification test her age is 16 years she is not completed her highschool examination and therefore given a margin of two years she became 18 years of age. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.01.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently 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 and keeping in view the circumstances as she is a pregnant lady and expected date of delivery is 11.07.2018, she is major and she on her own volition and accord went to Bikaner and married with applicant and resides as husband and wife which clearly shows that she is a consenting party and I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant- Shitesh Chauhan 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. 260 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376Kha IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoriawith the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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

¶13

BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM 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 APPLICANTS.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant/applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the

¶19

reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.4.2018

¶21

Abhishek Sri.

Shitesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shitesh Chauhan 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

Bhure Vs State of U.P.

Jagatpal Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Keshore @ Babua Vs State of U.P.

Firoj Khan Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Mustaq Vs State of U.P.

Ahsan Vs State of U.P.