Allowed

Srimati Kshama v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2018BAIL/15533/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 376-D IPC and Section 17 POCSO Act, the High Court allowed bail to the applicant who had been previously denied due to added charges. The court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance and trial conclusion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with strict undertaking conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15533 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Srimati Kshama Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar 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. 82 of 2016, under Sections 376-D IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Chatari, District- Bulandshahar 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. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that on the earlier occasion the applicant Srimati Kshama was released on bail by another co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8338 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 120-B and Section 8 POCSO Act vide order dated 06.03.2018. Later on police has submitted a charge sheet under sections 376-D and Section 17 of POCSO Act. It is further submitted that the police has not collected any additional material in the above mentioned sections i.e. section 376-D and Section 17 of POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Judge just because that earlier bail application was allowed by the High Court, without taking cognizance of the aforesaid added section, without re-appreciating the entirety of the case, has rejected the bail. It has been lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since 11.01.2018, without having any criminal antecedent 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 fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Srimati Kshama , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in

¶11

the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Nisha

Srimati Kshama v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srimati Kshama 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.

Kismatiya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.