Allowed

Nitin @ Patram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2018BAIL/13114/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal trial involving offences under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The court noted discrepancies between the FIR and statements but did not express an opinion on the merits, finding it a fit case for bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with strict conditions regarding attendance and undertaking against seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13114 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin @ Patram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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. 06 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though in the FIR there is allegation of rape upon the applicant that in odd hours in the night in the house. The applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and has tried to outrage her modesty but she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made an allegation that he has tried to disrobe her and misbehaved her. As per own 164 Cr.P.C. her age is 17 years. In her statement 164 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of rape or outraging her modesty. The only allegation is with regard to misbehaving with her and tried disrobe her.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2018 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- Nitin @ Patram 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. 06 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur 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

¶12

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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., 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Nitin @ Patram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin @ Patram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoj Khan Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Shitesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mustaq Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Munna Alias Ali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Satto Vs State of U.P.