Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019BAIL/15818/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC, this Court observed prima facie satisfaction regarding the charges. The bail was granted on personal bond and sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within one year.

What did the court decide?

Releasement on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to cooperate in trial and not tamper with evidence.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15818 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated due to village partibandi. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under section 16 and 164 Cr.P.C. are contrary and did not support the prosecution version. Further submission is that in medical report there is no external injury on the person of the victim. There is also no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 29.7.2018, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let applicant- Rahul, be released on bail in Case Crime No.851 of 2018, under Sections- 354 IPC, 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

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

¶15

above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.4.2019 ssm

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prakashi Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sartaj and and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rojan Shah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyan Prakash Agarwal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netra Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another