Bail application filed by Sujit Rajbhar accused of offences under Sections 376, 511, 354-K, 341 IPC. Court granted bail as applicant was not named in FIR or statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., upon personal bond and sureties.
Applicant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount.
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. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31241 of 2018
Applicant :- Sujit Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Sharma,Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Sharma & Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsels for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.91 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 354-K, 341 IPC, Police Station Bansdeeh-Kotwali, District Ballia, with the prayer to release him on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged specifically against one Sanoj Kumar. Even in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not taken the name of applicant. The role of attempt to commit rape or outraging modesty has been specifically levelled against co-accused Sanoj Kumar. Applicants name surfaced in the statements of some witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.6.2018 having no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Sujit Rajbhar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that :-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (2) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (3) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the Courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 20.8.2018 Hasnain
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering his omission from the first information report and absence in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail subject to personal bond and sureties despite the nature of the charges.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sujit Rajbhar
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
