The single judge allowed bail to the applicant, an alleged sexual offender, by applying only the larger constitutional mandate of Article 21 citing Supreme Court precedents, without expressing a view on the merits of the case.
Release on bail under a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17723 of 2018
Applicant :- Dhanraj Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Raj Nath Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to earlier dispute with regard to Sehan land. The informant and his family members always tried to dispossess the applicant from his Sehan land. The said fact has been mentioned in para 9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that applicant is the maternal uncle of the victim. He has not committed any offence as stated by the prosecution. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 17.06.2017 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Dhanraj Chauhan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2017, under Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC & Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station- Asothar, District- Fatehpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, charged with offences under IPC and POCSO, should be granted bail.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial in view of the larger mandate of Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶13
AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhanraj Chauhan
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
