Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020BAIL/46428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant sought release regarding a sexual offence charge. After noting evidence suggesting the victim knew the applicant prior to the incident and went with him voluntarily, the court found bail case made out.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and later sureties, adhering to strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conclusion within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46428 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 42 of 2020, under Sections 376, 342, 120B IPC, Police Station-Basai Mohammadpur, District-Firozabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the informant Margshree, the mother of the victim has lodged the present FIR on 02.05.2020 under Sections 376 and 120B IPC against the present applicant Arvind and one Shiv Kumar. It is further contended that as per the highschool certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 12.12.2000 i.e. on the date of the incident the age of the victim is around 19-20 years. It is contended by the counsel that the FIR which has been lodged that she has been enticed away by the applicant and the applicant along with Shiv Kumar has forcibly taken her on their motorcycle. The girl was eventually recovered on the same day.

¶8

The Court has opportunity to have a look into the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements. On a conjoint reading of both the statement made a picture explicitly clear that she states that she is in relationship with the applicant for last two months. Both of them are next door neighbours and even on the date of incident she has talked to applicant. It is victim herself, who revealed the contents of their talks and thereafter both of them gone to the secluded place without any resistance or objection. All these small nuances, if conjointly added indicate somewhere she was in the delicate relation with the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant-Arvind , 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:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT

¶13

ON THE DATE 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 HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

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

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.12.2020

¶25

Abhishek Sri.

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind v. State of U.P.

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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Dharmvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pratima Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bobi Vs State of Up

Chedilal Vs State of Up