Allowed

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2018BAIL/35456/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application concerns an applicant charged under Sections 376, 493, and 420 IPC. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, found a prima facie case for bail by noting insufficient medical corroboration. The applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties and undertaking to not seek adjournments during evidence.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35456 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Dubey,Rajeev Kumar Pandey,Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a married woman. It appears that she was having some relationship with the applicant who was boyfriend of her friend. She in order to save herself from insult deposed against the applicant. He further submits that though there is allegation of rape against the applicant in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same does not corroborate her medical report. He further submits that charges have not yet been framed by the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 11.8.2016.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, 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 Devendra, involved in Case Crime No.757 of 2016, u/s 376, 493, 420 IPC, P.S. Sector-49, district Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac with two sureties (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. Order Date :- 4.5.2018

¶15

Gaurav

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra 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

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Deena Nath @ Sheelu Vs State of U.P.

Udai Bhan Karwariya Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bandhu Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.