Allowed

Chhatrapal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2018BAIL/13892/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Cr. Misc. BA. No. 13892 of 2018 in case No. 431 of 2017, the Hon'ble Court granted bail to the applicant, Chhatrapal, accused of offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, based on victim's age and inconsistent medical examination refusal.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13892 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chhatrapal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra 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. 431 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was registered by the uncle of the victim on 23.12.2018 for the incident which is said to have been taken on 08.12.2017 under Section 363 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. The victim was recovered on 27.12.2017, she in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she has gone along with the applicant according to her own wish and sweet will and solemnized marriage on 19.12.2017 at Khurja has got married with applicant in a temple. Learned counsel submitted that the victim is an uneducated girl and according to medico legal opinion she is aged about 17-18 years. She states that she does not want to get herself medically examined and before the doctor she again reiterated the same version in 161 Cr.P.C. statement but in 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was recorded after 23 days of the recovery she somersaulted 180º levelling the wild allegation of rape upon the applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.12.2017 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 and keeping in view that the victim is aged about 17-18 years and she has not admitted herself for any medical examination under the circumstances I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Chhatrapal 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. 431 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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 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/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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 16.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Chhatrapal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal 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

Nitesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ritik @ Anshu Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Udal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Vs State of U.P.

Badal Vs State of U.P.