Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021BAIL/15780/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant accused of molestation under the POSCO Act and IPC. The court noted the complaint's difficulties due to the mother's refusal of a medical exam and the applicant's lack of criminal history, granting bail subject to conditions to prevent tampering and ensure court presence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramu released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15780 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 Case Crime No. 116 of 2020, under Sections 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POSCO Act, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR version applicant took away two daughters of the informant aged about 5 and 4 years in a jungle and molested one aged about 5 years. He submits that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that applicant took away in a jungle and lowred her panty as well as his own. As per medical report, mother of the victim has refused to conduct internal medical examination of the victim. He further submits that applicant had given Rs. 25,000/- to the marriage of informant's daughter in the year 2018 with the ulterior motive not to return the money he has been implicated in the 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 he is languishing in jail since 03.03.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that as per allegations applicant by giving money took away the victim in a jungle molested her, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, refusal of the mother of victim for internal medical examination, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Ramu involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local

¶10

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 Israr

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Rahul yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dheeru Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Rani Vs State of U.P

Mobin Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishor Savita Vs State of U.P.