Allowed

Gopal Parihar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021BAIL/16041/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail applicant sought release on bail alleging false implication in a sexual assault case. The court considered medical reports stating no evidence of recent assault, contradiction in victim statements, and pandemic-related jail overcrowding. Relying on constitutional mandates and precedent, the court found prima facie satisfaction granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Crime No. 482 of 2020 under Sections 452/376 IPC on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non-interference and court appearance.

Gopal Parihar Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16041 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gopal Parihar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Anoop Kumar,Manish Kumar Singh,Virendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is next contended that the alleged victim given her statement to Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. which is contrary to her statement recorded by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. The victim also stated that there is no concern from the accused since last one year and talk between both families are closed due to dispute going on regarding agricultural land and accused is her devar and is married. As per medical report the doctor has not found any evidence of recent sexual assault to the victim. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.01.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶9

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Gopal Parihar , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 482 of 2020, under Sections- 452/376 IPC, Police Station- Moth, DistrictJhansi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶12

amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.10.2021 Arti

Gopal Parihar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Parihar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazre Alam Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.

Aaftab Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another