Allowed

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2018CRLA/1448/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The Single Judge held that a case for bail was made out due to the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.2.2018 rejecting bail is set aside. Appellant Gopal is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1448 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Gopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Jitendra Kumar Mishra,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushant Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsels for the appellant, Sri Sushant Misra, Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 16.2.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad, in Bail Application No.15 of 2018 (Gopal vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.369 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 342, 384, 376 I.P.C. & 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali-Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶7

Argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the prosecutrix is aged bout 21 years. As per her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she fell in love with the applicant-appellant about four years back. It is contended that the proposal of marriage was made by the applicant and on the pretext of marrying her, the applicant-appellant established physical relations with her and after four years, he refused to marry. It is further argued that the prosecutrix is an educated girl of 21 year and she will be presumed to know the consequences of her act and at this stage it cannot be presumed that the appellant had established physical relations by playing any fraud or misrepresentation. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant-appellant is languishing in jail since 25.1.2018.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant had sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and in fact, he played fraud on the victim, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.

¶10

In the result, appeal stands allowed. The order dated 16.2.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad, in Bail Application No.15 of 2018 (Gopal vs. State of U.P.), arising out of

¶11

Case Crime No.369 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 342, 384, 376 I.P.C. & 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali-Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad, is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant- Gopal, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶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 applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.8.2018

¶18

Hasnain

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sonu Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Swaroop Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Vs State of U.P.

Parvez Vs State of U.P.

Ram Govind Singh Vs State of U.P.