Allowed

Sanjay Awasthi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018BAIL/14240/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving sections 376 IPC and 4 of POCSO Act. The applicant was to be released on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions aimed at preventing abuse of bail and ensuring regular attendance in court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Sanjay Awasthi Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14240 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, pursuant to the order dated 18.04.2018 passed by this Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the FIR was registered on 12.01.2018 by Smt. Premila Devi on the same day under sections 376 (1), 506 IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act with the allegations that her daughter, aged about 15 years, whilst fetching vegetables in the field, she was groped from the back by the applicant and by coercing and extending threats, the applicant has outraged her modesty. As per medical opinion of the doctor, her age was determined to be about 17 years. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has completed blasted from her past statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., by stating

¶8

that he had a fling with the applicant and she had pursuant to the command of the applicant- Sanjay Awasthi, joined his company and remained with him and even now she is desirous to remain with the applicant. From her aforesaid statement, it is established that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. It has been lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Sanjay Awasthi, involved in Case Crime No. 04 of 2018, under sections 376(1), 506 IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Jaspura, District Banda 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:-

¶12

(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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶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

¶18

RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

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 :- 27.4.2018

¶20

shailesh

Sanjay Awasthi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Awasthi 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

Anil Soni Vs State of U.P.

Kismatiya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shyamu Pal Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Babu Bhai Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Alias Bhura Vs State of U.P.