Allowed

Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021BAIL/7937/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court No. 67 granted bail to Anuj Kumar Varma in an IPC and POCSO case. The applicant was released on a personal bond without sureties due to the disrupted functioning of courts, with a requirement to furnish sureties once courts resume normal operations. The judgment highlighted the consensual nature of the relationship and the victim's affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Accused Anuj Kumar Varma released on personal bond without sureties; required to furnish sureties within one month of court restoration.

Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7937 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar,Mahendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 532 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Budaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are as follows:-

¶8

(a) The deponent of the present affidavit supporting the bail application, is none other than the victim herself.

¶9

(b) The age of the girl on the date of the incident is 17+ years.

¶10

(c) She in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement clearly indicates that she was in the deep love affair with the applicant and performed the marriage in the temple.

¶11

(d) Not only this, the applicant and victim approached this Court by means of Writ-C No 26690 of 2019 (Smt. Shivani Kashyap and another Vs. State of U.P. and three others) in which, this Court by order dated 13.08.2019, the interest of the parties were protected.

¶12

(e) She candidly states that she is still interested in joining the company of her husband (the present applicant).

¶13

All these facts indicates that the victim was in consensual relationship with the applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

Keeping in view 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.

¶16

Let the applicant-Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN

¶18

UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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.

¶19

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶20

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶21

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶23

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

¶24

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶25

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 1.7.2021

¶30

Abhishek Sri.

Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Sav Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Vs State of U.P.