Allowed

Rakesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2018BAIL/15547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to two applicants falsely implicated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO, imposing strict conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence recording to prevent abuse of the liberty granted.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to strict undertakings regarding trial attendance and consequences of default.

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15547 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar(A) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicants were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C., though they are not named in the FIR and during investigation no incriminating article was collected by the Investigation Officer against the applicants, therefore, their names were dropped by the police and it is only on the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3, namely; Kavita Devi and Neetu respectively, the names of the present nonaccused applicants were deliberately invovled, thus under section 319 Cr.P.C., they were summoned vide order dated 15.11.2017 by the court concerned. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.01.2017 co-accused Vineet Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicants are in jail

¶7

since 26.02.2018 without any criminal antecedent to their credit.

¶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 applicants.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused came into existence vide order dated 15.11.2017, in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C.,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 applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicants Rakesh Kumar and Bhagwat Saran, involved in S.T. No. 94 of 2016 (State of U.P. v. Harpal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 820 of 2016, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.s. Gajraula, District Pilibhit 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 APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE

¶12

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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL

¶16

COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THEM 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 RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 26.4.2018

¶19

shailesh

Rakesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar and Another 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.

Srimati Kshama Vs State of U.P.