Allowed

Kismatiya Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2018BAIL/15418/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a POCSO case involving rape allegations. The court highlighted the applicant's relationship to the victim and her age as key factors in finding it a fit case for bail, subject to strict undertaking conditions regarding attendance and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance and prosecution pace.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15418 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kismatiya Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devottam Pandey 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. 09 of 2018, under Sections 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Rasra, District Ballia is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present application in the added section. Earlier on 22.03.2018 coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted bail to the applicant under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rasra,District Ballia. Thereafter the police has submitted charge sheet under Section 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. It is submitted by the counsel that there is no additional material for fastening these section in the charge sheet on the allegation have been made against the co-accused Ashok Chauhan. There is no allegation of rape upon her. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18.01.2018 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 and keeping in view the relation ship and her age and she is mother of the applicant,I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Kismatiya Devi be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 09 of 2018, under Sections 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Rasra, District Ballia 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 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

¶13

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 :- 26.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Kismatiya Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kismatiya Devi 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

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Sita Ram Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Anil Soni Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Srimati Kshama Vs State of U.P.