Allowed

Ram Govind Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2018CRLA/853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge rejected bail in a case involving alleged rape and sexual assault under the IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection, and ordered release on bail with sureties and conditions precedent, while directing the court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; set aside order rejecting bail; trial to conclude within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 853 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Govind Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhakar Shukla,Diwakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shivakant,S1111

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Shivakant, counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent and perused the paper book.

¶6

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 13.12.2017 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Fatehpur in Case Crime no. 432 of 2017, u/s 354-A, 452, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(1), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Asothar, District Fatehpur whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.

¶7

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 21.8.2017 at about 9.50 am with the allegation that on 20.8.2017 at about 5.00 pm the appellant entered his house and finding his daughter alone pressed her mouth and also outraged her modesty, he also attempted to tear her cloth but he could not succeed in it when his daughter raised alarm on which his nephew and other witnesses saw the applicant fleeing away from the spot. In the F.I.R. there is no allegation of commission of rape, however, the prosecutrix in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. more or less repeated the same version as setup in the F.I.R. However, in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after 14 days of the incident she has made allegation of commission of rape. Thereafter the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. However, in the medical report, no external or internal injury has been noted. It is argued that from the medical report, the prosecutrix is aged about 19 years. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2017.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prosecutrix has consistently stated about commission of rape before the doctor at the time of medical examination and also in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶9

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 13.12.2017 is, hereby, set aside.

¶10

Let appellant, Ram Govind Singh , 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:

¶11

(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

¶12

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;

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.8.2018 Dhirendra/

Ram Govind Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Govind Singh 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

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.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others