Allowed

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2018CRLA/79/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by Satendra against an order denying bail in a rape and POCSO case under the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and releasing the appellant on bail with strict undertakings to secure his presence in trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; Impugned order dated 7.12.2017 set aside; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 79 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Satendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Narayan,Ashutosh Tripathi,Narendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

In the counter affidavit filed by learned AGA for the State, as per Annexure- CA-1, notice has been served personally to respondent no.2, through concerned Police Station yet no one has appeared on his behalf to argue the appeal.

¶6

Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant assisted by Sri Narendra Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State and carefully perused the averments made in the FIR and the statement of mother of the victim and statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶7

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sonbhadra in Case Crime No.148 of 2017 under Section 452, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

It is contended by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the manner in which the version of rape has been set up by the prosecution in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecutrix, primafacie it appears that the prosecution has not come out with clean hands and has suppressed certain material facts. It is argued that the version of rape is not supported by medical evidence and as per the medical report the age of victim is 17 years and the possibility of her being consenting party cannot be ruled out in the peculiar facts of the case. The appellant is in jail since 20.9.2017.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not refuse the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate.

¶10

In my opinion, elaborating certain facts which has formed my opinion in favour of grant of bail to the appellant, would not be appropriate as the same may effect the trial.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 7.12.2017 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

Let appellant, Satendra , be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;

¶14

(ii) The appellant 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;

¶15

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶16

(iv) The appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Deepika

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra 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

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Hari Kishan Vs Sate of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rais Khan @ Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.