Allowed

Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2021BAIL/17586/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge, Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Raj accused of molestation and assault under IPC and POCSO. Court distinguished co-accused bail for parity, noted lack of medical evidence timeline issues, and fixed personal bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to strict conditions.

Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17586 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Srivastava,Mukesh Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Mishra,Shyam Singh Somvanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar,learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the informant although, names of Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate Sri Shyam Singh Somvanshi Advocates on behalf of the informant are shown in the list.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 671 of 2020, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 354-A, 313 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. First information report has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Suraj stating therein that on 29.8.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. the applicant and other co-accused Suraj entered the house of the informant and molested his daughter. When she resisted, the applicant and other co-accused assaulted on the abdomen of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). It is further submitted that first information report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations after four months on 29.12.2020. Medical certificate has not been collected during the course of investigation with regard to the injury on the abdomen. Alleged medical report, as shown in the record, is made on 29.9.2020 after making inquiry by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Varanasi. No case is made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet has been submitted on 7.2.2021 and the applicant is no more required for the purpose of investigation.

¶8

It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused- Suraj having identical role to the applicant had already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this

¶9

Court vide order dated 20.9.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15562 of 2021, hence the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 6.2.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶11

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. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Raj who is involved in aforesaid crime 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.

¶13

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.10.2021 Akbar

Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yachna Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Sona Jaat Vs State of U.P.

Maya Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Umakant Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.