Bhupendra @ Lauhari Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24375 of 2020

Applicant :- Bhupendra @ Lauhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Ganesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Dutta Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 194 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 2nd April, 2020 at about 7.15 p.m. in the evening victim aged about 15 years went in the field of Dharamvir to answer call of nature where applicant and co-accused Mukesh and Ashish @ Cheta caught her and committed rape. He submits that FIR has been lodged on 05th April, 2020 by delay of 3 days. In medical report, no injury has been found and she also refused to conduct her internal medical examination and before the doctor she has not disclosed the name of the applicant only, she has stated that three persons caught her and committed misdeed. Admittedly, the applicant and co-accused are uncle of the victim. It is submitted that as per FIR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Lohari tied cloth on her face while in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ashish @ Cheta the co-accused pushed cloth in her mouth thus there is contradiction regarding tying the face or pushing clothes. 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 there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that applicant is not real uncle of the victim and victim in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has levelled allegations of rape against the applicant and co-accused.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, as per FIR all the three accused named committed rape upon the victim, as per FIR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Lohari tied her face with cloth while as per statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ashish @ Cheta pushed cloth in her mouth, according to statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., only applicant and co-accused Ashish @ Cheta committed rape upon her, before the doctor victim not disclosing the name of the accused persion as well as as per medical report conducted on 05.04.2020 hymen found old torn and healed, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Bhupendra @ Lauhari 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 :-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶15

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 Israr

Bhupendra @ Lauhari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra @ Lauhari 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

Kismat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Vs State of U.P.and Another

Hariom Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham @ Abhishek Chaudhray Vs State of U.P.

Shani Alias Sannu Vs State of U.P. and Another