Allowed

Kalua @ Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2021BAIL/12834/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court considered charges of rape under IPC and provisions of POCSO Act. The court observed discrepancies in medical reports and victim statement. The application was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and submission to further bail conditions when courts resume normal functioning.

Kalua @ Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12834 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kalua @ Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Notice was duly served upon opposite party no.2 but none has filed Vakalatnama on his behalf. Thus with the help and aid of learned AGA, the Court is proposing to decide the instant bail application on merits.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.0855 of 2020, under Section 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Loni, DistrictGhaziabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that one Pappu lodged the FIR against the applicant under sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act on 13.10.2020 against the sole name accused Kalua @ Amar Singh, with the allegation that the applicant is committed rape with his daughter for last one year and his daughter carrying pregnancy of six months. It is also mentioned in the FIR that he has taken obscene pics of his daughter and using it to black-mail her and establishing physical relation with her against her wish and desire.

¶9

On the earlier occasion by order dated 2.6.2021, the Court has asked the learned AGA to file counter affidavit specifically mentioning as to whether there was any obscene picture or vidoes of the victim was recovered by the police during investigation and her condition about the pregnancy.

¶10

Learned AGA filed counter affidavit, in which, they have stated that during the investigation, no mobile was recovered from the applicant and consequently there is no question of circulating any obscene picture and videos as alleged. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded seems to be not only unnatural but highly improbable, do not generate confidence of

¶11

this Court. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C is clear depiction of some tutoring of the victim.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the stage of intoxication, the applicant has extended threats on mobile and revealed the fact the informant he is raping his daughter for last one year but this fact are not established by any documentary evidence. There is no external or internal injury over her person and the pregnancy test is negative. Her age in the medical report is 17 years on the date of incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2020.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Kalua @ Amar Singh, who is involved in case crime no.0855 of 2020, under Section 376, 506 IPC, and Section 5/6 Pocso Act, Police Station-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

(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 IPC.

¶18

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO

¶19

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 IPC.

¶20

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

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-: 1. 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. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. 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 :- 25.10.2021 SFH

Kalua @ Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalua @ Amar Singh 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

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulshan @ Hajra Vs State of U.P.

Chaman Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another