Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/7504/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under S.S.T. No.56/9/2019 arising from an IPC 376-D and POCSO case, the Court granted bail after noting a discrepancy between alleged beatings and a clean medical report, releasing the applicant on bond with strict conditions to ensure witness protection and trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Arun released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two local sureties of equivalent amount subject to strict conditions regarding conduct and trial attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7504 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar,Virendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brahma Kumar Tiwari,Omar Zamin

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Lokesh Kumar 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 S.S.T. No.56/9 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.1146 of 2018, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version on 12.12.2018 at about 6:30 p.m. victim aged about 16 years was standing at her door, applicant and coaccused took away her forcefully in forest and committed rape upon her. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that applicant and co-accused took away her in a field of sugarcane committed rape and also prepared a video. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has specifically stated that applicant closed her mouth but it was not stated in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is also stated that they tried to kill by pressing neck, this fact has not been disclosed in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Independent witnesses have stated that a land dispute is going on between informant and applicant's family that is why he has been implicated in the present case. He further submits that elder mother of the applicant has purchased a land from Ashok Singh (real brother) of the informant. When I.O. asked from the informant anyone saw while taking away the victim, he did not reply. In first information report, it is disclosed that many persons saw the incident but no witness has supported the case. As per F.I.R. accused persons committed marpeet with the victim also but as per medical report conducted on 13.12.2019, no injury has been found. First informant has also stated that they made his life miserable, he

¶8

has to send them jail. He further submitted that after investigation final report was submitted, on protest petition he has been summoned. Applicant also approached this Court through application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the direction to surrender before the court concerned on which applicant surrendered before the court concerned and bail of the applicant was rejected before the court concerned. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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 is languishing in jail since 20.01.2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that victim has levelled clear cut allegation of rape against the applicant. As per contention of learned counsel for the applicant there is long standing dispute between the applicant and informant but there is no evidence to substantiate the contention. As per medical report age of the victim has been ascertained 16 years and as per school record date of birth of the victim is 27.05.2005, according to which at the time of incident, she was 13 years old, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per F.I.R. applicant and co-accused beat the victim but as per medical report no injury being found, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Arun 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 :-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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

¶13

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Jitendra

Arun v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham @ Abhishek Chaudhray Vs State of U.P.

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

Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanju @ Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuttu Alias Rajkaran Vs State of U.P. and Another