Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2021BAIL/27735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Relying on the lack of physical injury and contradictions in victim statements, the order allowed release on a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard and extraordinary conditions due to court delays.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with additional conditions regarding temporary release without sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27735 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kukmar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 106 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Seharamau Dakshini, District Shahjahanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Contention raised by counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was registered by the informant against the applicant and co-accused Jai Devi under sections 363, 366 IPC on 12.3.2021 with the allegation that on 12.3.2021, around 9.00 A.M., the applicant has enticed away his sister with the aid of co-accused Jai Devi. The girl was recovered after four days of the incident. There is a stark contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. The injury report of the victim indicates that there are no sign of any use of force on her body. No sign of any struggle or the resistance were observed by the doctor. She stated before the doctor that her parents were settling her marriage with an elderly person and out of sheer mark of

¶8

protest she left and joined the company of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.4.2021.

¶9

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.

¶10

Keeping in view, there is no injury over the victim and stark contradiction in the statement of the girl recorded under sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 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. Let the applicant, Ramu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 106 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Seharamau Dakshini, District Shahjahanpur, 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.

¶11

(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.

¶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

¶13

CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extraordinary 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-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 1.11.2021 Puspendra

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmkant Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Omprakash @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Awadh Kevat Vs State of U.P.