Allowed

Mohd. Rais v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2018BAIL/16509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a Section 376 IPC case pending trial, accepting submissions regarding the nature of report without expressing a formal opinion on merits, subject to strict conditions including physical presence in court and attendance on evidence dates.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and no seeking adjournments during evidence.

Mohd. Rais Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16509 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Rais Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Atmaram Nadiwal 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.442 of 2017, under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the victim is divorcee and mother of two kids, she was earlier married to Mohd. Kalam. As per the medical examination report her age comes around 18 years of age. She in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that on the promise made by the applicant she surrender herself and established physical relation on her own accord for four good months and became pregnant thereafter when the applicant wriggled out from his promise her own volition and accord and despite this knowledge she maintained a physical relationship with the applicant, which appears that the applicant is a consenting party. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 11.09.2017 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, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Mohd. Rais be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.442 of 2017, under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau 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 ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A

¶13

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 :- 3.5.2018

¶19

Abhishek Sri.

Mohd. Rais v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rais 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

Shyam Sunder Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

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

Ram Kishore Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Mannu @ Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.