Allowed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018BAIL/14266/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376 IPC, the court noted prosecutrix inconsistencies in her medical age and recorded statements. Holding that bail was made out, the applicant was released on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions against absenting from trial dates.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14266 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, 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 the FIR is delayed by three days of the alleged incident. The prosecutrix is a student of B.A.-I. Though in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has repeated the FIR version but her radiologial report reveals that she is a girl of 18 years and in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has 100% wriggled out from her earlier statement and categorically stated therein that the applicant has committed no offence against her and whatever statement she has given under section 161 Cr.P.C., is wrong and false. It has been lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since 01.03.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶7

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the

¶8

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 Virendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 143 of 2016, under section 376 IPC, P.S. Mahoba, District Mahoba 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 CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE

¶14

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 :- 18.4.2018

¶18

shailesh

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar 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

Ravindra Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shambhoo Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Surajbhan Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Mumtaz Vs State of U.P.

Rani Vs State of U.P.