Allowed

Rajvir v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/37852/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by applicant Rajvir in custody involving charges under IPC and POCSO Act. Court found applicant made no case of direct rape allegation, was accomplice to a friend, devoid of criminal history, and fit for bail. Allowed bail with strict conditions regarding attendance and scrutiny of orders.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties upon satisfying imposed conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Rajvir Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37852 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajvir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in case crime no. 163 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B, 406 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Babina, DistrictJhansi, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged by the victim herself on 29.07.2020, after four days, with regard to alleged incident dated 25.07.2020 against three persons, namely Gaurav, Rajvir (applicant) and Mohar Singh Yadav.

¶9

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR there is no allegation of committing rape against the present applicant Rajvir. It is next submitted that victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also made an allegation of committing rape only against Gaurav. So far as role of present applicant is concerned, it is submitted that applicant being a friend of Gaurav, helped him in enticing away the victim. As per high school mark-sheet, age of victim is more than 17 years. Lastly, it is submitted that the case of present applicant is distinguishable on the facts and evidence on record from the main accused Gaurav. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2020 and the applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶10

Learned AGA and learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but they did not dispute the aforesaid submissions as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Rajvir , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶13

(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.

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

declaration of such verification in writing. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.12.2020 AK Pandey

Rajvir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvir 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

Akhilesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pandy Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Raikwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durgesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Dubey Vs State of U.P.