Allowed

Ranjeet Gaur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2020BAIL/12276/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving rape and criminal force under IPC Sections 376 and 452. Despite the charge's gravity, the court allowed release on a personal bond and two sureties while insisting on compliance with court orders and anti-riot directives due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each.

Ranjeet Gaur Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12276 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ranjeet Gaur with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 15 of 2020, under Sections - 452, 376 I.P.C., Police Station - Khorabar, District - Gorakhpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C.;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 24.01.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 25.01.2020;

¶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) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the present bail application by relying on the FIR allegation which is corroborated by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, according to the applicant he has been falsely implicated. Also, it is noted, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that though the incident is described to have taken place on 20.01.2020 and the applicant had initially been apprehended from the spot, yet, FIR came to be lodged with a delay of four days. Even then, there is no independent eye-witness nor there is adverse observation made

¶15

in the medical report. Thus, it has been submitted that the present criminal prosecution is a result of failed relationship between the applicant and the victim.

¶16

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.

¶17

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ranjeet Gaur involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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:

¶27

" 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. "

¶28

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence or to even make contact with her either personally or through his agent or through electronic means or telephonic means or by any other means, it may result in immediate cancellation of bail being granted to the applicant, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶29

Order Date :- 12.6.2020 Abhilash

Ranjeet Gaur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Gaur 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

Dhyan Singh @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram @ Vitu Vs State of U.P.

Dukhanti Gond Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Kumar @ Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Putul @ Vindesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.