Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1161 of 2020

Applicant :- Bhupendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Bhushan Mishra,Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bhupendra Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -149 of 2019, under Sections -376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station -Surir, District -Mathura, pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 28.07.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 28.08.2019;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(vi) without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is seen that no allegation of rape was made either in the FIR or even in the statement of the victim upon her recovery. Subsequently, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegation of rape has emerged. The same is stated to be wholly false and self contradicted by the conversation recorded between the applicant and the victim which would establish that the victim had never been kidnapped and no occurrence had taken place. While no finding of fact or

¶14

observations is to be recorded as may effect the final merits of the trial, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is found entitled to bail;

¶15

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶16

The above prayer has been opposed by learned AGA.

¶17

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Bhupendra Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶20

(iii) 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. 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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant 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, 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.

¶22

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶26

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶27

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 S.Chaurasia

Bhupendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdullah Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.and Another