Jitendra Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10080 of 2020

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Goswami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia,Abhijeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Jitendra Kumar Goswami , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 265 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the F.I.R itself it is stated by the victim / prosecutrix that she was having some contact with the applicant and had gone to the guest house on his making false promise of getting her some job and marriage where she was subjected to rape by the applicant. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. / Annexure- 7 to the affidavit the victim reiterates the same version regarding the going to the guest house but further states that there she was forced to drink beer and forcibly rape was committed on her. She further stated that she was in the guest house for two days and then she was left to go back with an assurance by the applicant that he would come back after 10 days. Later on, he called up the prosecutrix and told her that he cannot marry her as he is already married. She further stated in her statement that the conversation between her and the applicant was recorded by the applicant which was posted by him on the social media. Learned counsel further argued that there is no evidence of the fact that any recording was launched on social media. The prosecutrix on her own showing in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is aged about 21 years having her date of birth as 08.04.1998. She went to the guest house on her sweet will and was there with the applicant for two days. She did not make any attempt whatsoever to run away from the place, in spite of the fact that the place was a guest house in which generally there are many people coming and going. It is further argued that the F.I.R is delayed as the incident took place from 21.07.2019 to 23.07.2019 but the F.I.R was lodged

¶8

on 06.12.2019 which is delayed without any explanation whatsoever. It is further argued that till date no such video recording has seen the light of the day and even the prosecution of the applicant is not for the same under the Information and Technology Act. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2020 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Let the applicant, Jitendra Kumar Goswami, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.3.2020 AS Rathor

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Jitendra Kumar Goswami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Goswami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ballu Vs State of U.P.

Santram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P.

Vikram @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.

Bhagauti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another