Allowed

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2018BAIL/31717/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of Court No. - 55 granted bail to Suraj in a case alleging sexual harassment and abduction. Citing established precedents, the court held the applicant entitled to freedom due to reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and prima facie evidence sufficiency, imposing standard bail conditions and directing expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Suraj released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions complying with the law.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31717 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

¶6

Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against the applicant and other co-accused alleging that when she alongwith her brother had gone to Jamui Market both the accused had forcibly taken her to nearby forest where both the accused made sexual harassment with her and thereafter they fled away after leaving her in the forest

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recoded under sections 161 &164 Cr.P.C., which creates doubt in the prosecution story. The applicant is next door neighbour of the complainant and she used to fetch water from the boring of the applicant in which some altercation had taken place between the applicant and the complainant and due to this reason the victim has falsely implicated him in the present case. It is also contended that no person has witnessed the incident while the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in a busy market at Petrol Pump. The victim is not medically examined.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 3.6.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, 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, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Suraj involved in Case Crime No.153 of 2018, under Sections 363, 354, 506 I.P.C & 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Madihaan, District- Mirzapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

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 applicants to prison.

¶17

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 production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of AlakhAlok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018(SC) 2004.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.10.2018 IA

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rai Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bahadur Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Santoo Vs State of U.P.