Allowed

Rajeev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2021BAIL/8539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8539 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to applicant Rajeev during the trial of a case involving Sections 341, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and POCSO. The court found him a fit case for bail, noting he was falsely implicated and granted relief similar to a co-accused, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Rajeev on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8539 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mashaluddin Shah

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 470 of 2020, under Sections 341, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim,namely, Mohini was medically examined on the same day but the medical examination report does not support the prosecution story. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Narendra has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8756 of 2021. Case of the applicant is identical to the case of aforesaid co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2020 and the applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Rajeev, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his

¶11

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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 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 of any of the above conditions, it

¶18

shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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 testimony of the witnesses.

¶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 :- 24.6.2021 SY

Rajeev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Akhtar Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Sagar @ Jaiveer Vs State of U.P. and another