Allowed

Ankit Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021BAIL/46433/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal appeal involving offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. The applicant argued that the prosecutrix was an adult and they were married. The court dispensed with merits and granted bail on personal and surety bond with standard conditions, including the computerized order process.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties, conditioned against tampering, intimidation, and criminal activity, and required to produce computer-generated copies of the order.

Ankit Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46433 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kirit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Applicant-Ankit Rajbhar seeks bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Kirit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA appearing for the Staterespondent and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the FIR dated 04.08.2020 to submit that initially the FIR has been registered under Section 363 IPC and only allegation was that the prosecutrix had been taken away by the applicant. He has also referred to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that the applicant and the prosecutrix were known to each other for a substantial period of time and that they had married each other. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been relied upon to submit that she had categorically stated that she had a liking for the accused. The report of the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh in respect of the age has also been relied upon to contend that according to the medical opinion the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Rajak Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 9 SCC 248 , has held that where the prosecutrix lived with the accused and freely moved around with the accused where she came across many people at different points of time but never complained of any criminal act, the conviction of the accused under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C was held to be unwarranted in law. It is submitted that he has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 07.08.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶10

applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the 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 with the following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Imroz

Ankit Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Rajbhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalji Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sana @ Pooja and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Shikha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Reena and Another Vs Rajveer Singh and 8 Others

Shreeom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another