Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2020BAIL/329/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant Kuldeep in a POCSO and rape case involving a minor victim. Bail was allowed on personal bond with heavy sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance, prohibition of witness tampering, and compliance with pandemic-related lockdown directives restricting surety requirements.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and no tampering with witnesses or evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 329 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sohan Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

By the earlier order, the CMO had required to submit a report as to the age of the victim and that report has been received. Perusal of the same reveals that according to the medical opinion, the age of the victim is about 16 years.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Kuldeep with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -542 of 2019, under Sections -376-D, 506 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station -Jani, District -Meerut, pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections -376-D, 506 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 09.10.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 12.10.2019;

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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 submitted that applicant has been completely falsely implicated owing to quarrel that had taken place in the evening preceding the alleged incident. Only for that reason false accusation has been made against the applicant. As to the allegation of rape, it has been submitted that the same is plainly false, as other than the bald statement of the victim, there is no evidence to proceed against the applicant, inasmuch as the victim of her own refused to get herself medically examined. She had neither

¶15

suffered any injury nor the occurrence is real. Even as to the age of the victim, her family members have taken a completely inconsistent stand. Her age having been described as eleven years, ten years, fourteen years, at different stages by different persons, whereas the CMO report indicates that victim is sixteen years of age. At present, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and on the other hand, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year;

¶16

(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.

¶17

The above prayer has been opposed by learned AGA.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Kuldeep 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

(viii) 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 the victim 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.

¶27

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:

¶28

" 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 accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶29

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 S.Chaurasia

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Cases cited

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.

Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdullah Vs State of U.P.

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