Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020BAIL/2225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Allahabad considered the prayed for release of the applicant in a case involving rape and molestation. The applicant claimed the alleged offence did not occur, while the State contended the victim was a minor. The court granted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by filing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to undertakings against tampering with evidence and attendance in court.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2225 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shilpa Ahuja,Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Case called out, no one appears on behalf of informant.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.292 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 & 3(1)(W)(I) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version on 29.05.2019, applicant committed rape upon the victim. He further submits that F.I.R. has been lodged by delay of near about three months. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has levelled allegation against the applicant for attempting to commit rape upon her. It is alleged that on 14.07.2019 victim took Salfas, thereafter, she was admitted in C.H.C., Rath and referred to medical college, Jhansi while in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has levelled allegation of rape against the applicant. He submits that actually the victim was a consenting party with the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2018.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that as per academic record date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2005, according to which at the time of alleged incident, she was minor. It is further submits that on

¶11

29.05.2019, applicant committed rape upon the victim and again on 30.07.2019, he attempted to abuse and molest stating that if she told about the incident then he will again commit rape as committed earlier and started molesting her, being aggrieved from the incident, she took Salfas and the victim has stated the version through her statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of the victim and as per F.I.R. rape was committed on 29.05.2019 and threatened on 30.07.2019 and she told about the incident to anyone,, he will again commit rape and molested her again, she ate Salfas, as per medical report, there is no evidence about the Salfas, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Rajesh involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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

¶17

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 Jitendra

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet @ Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Bahadur Saroj Vs State of U.P.