Allowed

Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2021ABAIL/1358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court granted interim relief conditional on the age determination of the victim. The court directed the applicant no.1 to produce the victim for medical examination within ten days to confirm her age. If found a minor, bail remains subject to investigation completion. If found a major consenting to live with the applicant, bail is granted with standa

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to production of the second applicant for age verification within ten days and compliance with bail conditions.

Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P and 3… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1358 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii,Shikha Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Naseem Rufi,learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Counter affidavits filed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant are taken on record.

¶7

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶8

This exemption application is allowed.

¶9

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶10

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar and Smt. Chhaya , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 441 of 2020 , under Sections- 363,366 I.P.C., Police StationAliganj , District- Etah, during pendency of trial.

¶11

From the High School marksheet the victim is minor.The applicants are on interim anticipatory bail by order dated 25.1.2021.

¶12

There is allegation of enticement and abduction of applicant no.2 by the applicant no. 1in the F.I.R.The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.2 is major and has married the applicant no.1, Applicant no.1 will produce her before the court ,if directed by the court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.He has submitted that in view of seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the

¶14

applicant is not founded on any material on record.Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that applicant no.1 will produce the applicant no.2 before the C.J.M., Etah, within a period of ten days. The C.J.M. concerned will get her medical examination conducted for the purpose of age determination by the C.M.O. concerned and record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicants shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the period of ten days initially on compliance of this order it shall be extended. On failure to comply this order, anticipatory bail granted to the applicants shall stand cancelled and the police shall be free to arrest the applicants.

¶16

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail for the period of three weeks initially and after compliance of above condition till cognizance is taken on police report by the court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy

¶22

of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶25

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶26

In case the victim is found major and in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. expresses her willingness to live with the applicant then in case of his arrest the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶28

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶29

That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶30

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the

¶31

effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶32

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶33

The applicants 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Order Date :- 18.3.2021

¶37

Atul kr. sri.

Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh @ Rohit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P and 3 Others

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

Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Tiwari @ Shivam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shabnam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman @ Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.