Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2020BAIL/2936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused in a case involvingIPC Sections 363, 376 and POCSO. Bail was granted with conditions, including appearance in court and non-adjudication of adjournments. Orders were made to comply with Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 regarding sureties during the COVID-19 lockdown.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of appearance and undertakings.

Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2936 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 503 of 2019, under Sections - 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Rampur Maniharan, District - Saharanpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 30.10.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 13.11.2019;

¶9

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

¶10

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

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

¶12

(v) 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 submitted that present is a case of failed relationship between the parties and, in any case, the allegations of rape has emerged solely on account of the fact that the parents of the victim has totally disapproved the conduct of the present applicant. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation of rape.

¶13

(vi) while the bail of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State, they would submit that the victim is an underage girl, however, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear any ground to suspect that if the applicant be enlarged on bail, he would not misuse the terms

¶14

and conditions of the bail order.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State

¶24

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:

¶25

" 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. "

¶26

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 Prakhar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdullah Vs State of U.P.