Allowed

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2018BAIL/15872/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application dismissed the State's objection. The Court granted bail to the applicant, a student with no prior criminal record, involved in offenses under the IPC and POCSO. Bail was granted after a 48-hour delay in lodging the FIR and pointing out inconsistencies in the victim's statements describing a tender relationship and consent.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15872 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pratap Rao,Pulak Ganguly,Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pulak Ganguli, 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 despite the fact that the informant was knowing the fact that the applicant has enticed away his nephew, the present FIR was lodged after delay of 48 hours i.e., 07.01.2018 with regard to the incident alleged to have occurred on 05.01.2018. The victim is an illiterate girl and as per radiological report she is aged about 18 years. On perusal of her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that there were certain tender relationship between the applicant and the victim and that is why she on her own volition and accord joined the company of the applicant and for full 48 hours, she remained in seclusion and established physical relationship with him. Thereafter she returned to her home. Learned counsel besides above,

¶7

has pointed out many other vital inconsistencies in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which touches the core of prosecution story. It is lastly urged that the applicant is a student of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and languishing in jail since 11.01.2018 without any criminal antecedent. The possibility of consent cannot be ruled out altogether.

¶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 Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj, involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 342, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Sahjanva, District Gorakhpur 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

¶12

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 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.

¶14

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

¶17

RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

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 :- 2.5.2018/shailesh

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj 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

Shyamu Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Awasthi Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Babu Bhai Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sunder Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishore Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Indra Pal Vs State of U.P.