Allowed

Jagatpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018BAIL/12712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application was heard where the applicant alleged false implication in a rape and POCSO case. The court found that sufficient material on record has been made out for granting bail despite the grave nature of the offense.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court appearance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12712 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jagatpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sita Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri RP Singh and Sri Sita Ram Pal, 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 according to the prosecution case, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 5th July 2000. In the text of the FIR, registered by the father of the victim, who lodged the same on 24.09.2017 i.e., after about five days of the incident. The age of the prosecutrix has been stated to be 19 years therein. In the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that earlier in order to save her dignity and honour, she could not reveal the fact that she has been raped by the applicant on the fateful day i.e., 19.09.2017 but in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix dwarfed her story and limitised the role of only teasing against the applicant Jagatpal. The applicant is in jail since 26.09.2017, having no

¶7

criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Jagatpal, involved in Case Crime No. 173 of 2017, under sections 376 (1) IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Kishanpur, District Fatehpur 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

¶13

CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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.

¶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 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 :- 9.4.2018

¶18

shailesh

Jagatpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagatpal 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

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.

Lalit Keshore @ Babua Vs State of U.P.

Avnis Rajput Vs State of U.P.