Allowed

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018BAIL/7813/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant convicted of an offence under Section 376 IPC. The court observed that the FIR was registered by the victim after a relationship established with her consent, noting she lodged the complaint after the applicant married another woman. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7813 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Srivastava,Kandarp Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 269 of 2017, under Sections 376 IPC, P.S. Ganganagar, District Meerut is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present FIR was registered by the victim herself under Section 376 IPC after 1-1/2 years of the incident against the applicant and two more person. It is submitted by the counsel that the victim is a married lady aged about 32 years and a mother of three kids. She in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. candidly states that she has established relationship with the applicant on her own volition and accord. The applicant promised her to marry provided the informant divorced her husband, since the informant did not turn up, the applicant Vijay got married infuriated by this the present FIR was registered after 1-1/2 years. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement she also states that the applicant use to bear all her expenses. As soon as the applicant has got married with another woman, she got mortally afraid about her future and this was the root cause of lodging the FIR. In 164 Cr.P.C. she states that she has established a physical relation on her own accord and volition and maintained it for more than 1-1/2 years. This is the case of consenting party. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.01.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Vijay 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 in case crime no. 269 of 2017, under Sections 376 IPC, P.S. Ganganagar, District Meerut with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Surajbhan Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Mumtaz Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Babu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Rahul Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bahadur Sharma Vs State of U.P.