Allowed

Rahul Jaishwal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2018BAIL/14886/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowing the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to detailed conditions regarding court appearances and preventing abuse of bail, in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14886 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Jaishwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.202 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Dasaswamedh, DistrictVaranasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by mother of the victim against the applicant for the offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2018, in which she has clearly stated that she is in affair with the applicant and on her own will, she along with the applicant went to Mughalsarai and from there they went to Delhi and thereafter they went to Punjab, where they roamed 4 - 5 days. Lastly, they went to Ajmer and from there they returned to Varanasi. As per ossification test, her age comes around 19 years and she is not high school passed. From the aforesaid facts, she appears to be a consenting party. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶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, Rahul Jaiswal , involved in case crime no.202 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Dasaswamedh, District- Varanasi 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/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 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶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 APPLICANT.

¶16

However, it is made clear that any willful 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. Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Anoop

Rahul Jaishwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jaishwal 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 Vs State of U.P.

Ajju @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Tinkoo @Manjesh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.