Allowed

Raju Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2018BAIL/48670/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a bail application lodged by Raju Patel accused of unnatural offence and POCSO violations. Bench held it was a fit case for bail without expressing opinion on merits, directing release on personal bond with sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Relieved the applicant Raju Patel from jail custody on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearance in court and non-tampering with evidence.

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48670 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against Raju Patel alleging that on 08.08.2015 he made unnatural offence voluntarily carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the son of the complainant Moti Prasad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is a government servant; there is no independent witness against the applicant which may show his participation in the alleged crime; medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is in jail since 09.08.2017 (more than five months) having no criminal history.

¶7

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶8

Let the applicant Raju Patel involved in the Case Crime No. 1174 of 2015, under Section 377 I.P.C. & 3/4, 5/6 POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar 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 with the following conditions:

¶9

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶10

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶12

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶13

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Raju Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Patel 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Alias Chhotey Yadav Vs State of U.P.

ram avtar Vs State of U.P.

arpan Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gond Vs State of U.P.

Kedar @ Kedar Nath Vs State of U.P.

Mustak @ Raju Vs State of U.P.