Allowed

Pappu Lodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022/10561/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a fourth bail application regarding rape charges under IPC and POCSO Act, the court granted bail to the applicant. The judgment relied on inconsistencies between the FIR timing, the alleged time of victim recovery, and the absence of sperm evidence in FSL reports.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Pappu Lodh was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court appearance.

Pappu Lodh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10561 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Lodh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Shri Rajiv Verma, learned AGA conceded this fact that complainant was informed by the Police Station House Officer about the pendency of the case but no one has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶7

This is the 4th bail application. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd bail applications were rejected by coordinate bench of the this Court and this Court, respectively vide orders dated 16.07.2019, 22.10.2020 and 27.01.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1923 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No.535 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9722 of 2020.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 69 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120 (B) IPC and 16/17, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nigohan, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He further submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 28.02.2017. He further submitted that till today trial has not been concluded. He further submitted that as per prosecution case, the applicant committed rape thrice in the night and thereafter the victim was dropped by the applicant at her maternal-grand-mother's house at 2.30 AM on 18.02.2017. During investigation, not even single person was interrogated on the point that whether the victim was dropped by the applicant at her maternal-grandmother's house. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 18.02.2017 at 11 A.M. as no information was given by the maternal-grand-mother to the informant about her recovery and she was medically examined and slide of vaginal swap was also

¶10

prepared for pathological examination and in pathological examination, no any live or dead spermatozoa was found. He further submitted that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. He further submitted that FSL report also does not support the prosecution story. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after investigation sufficient evidences have been collected by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed and thereafter trial proceeded and in her deposition before the trial court, the victim has supported the prosecution story and he also relied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamta and another versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 699 and submitted that confinement period is no ground for bail but he does not dispute this fact that as per prosecution case, the prosecutrix was dropped by the applicant on 18.02.2017 at 2.30 A.M. at her maternal-grand-mother's house and the FIR was lodged on 18.02.2017 at 11 A.M. and information related to the recovery of the victim was not reported to the informant by her maternalgrand-mother or any family member.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as leaned AGA and going through the contents of FIR and other relevant documents as well as FSL report. As the supplementary Medical Report, FSL Report does not find spermatozoa and it is also found that the victim was dropped by the applicant on 18.02.2017 at 2.30 A.M but there is no mention of the recovery of the victim in the FIR which was lodged on 18.02.2017 at 11 A.M. and the applicant is in jail since 28.02.2017, in such circumstances, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Pappu Lodh , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 KR

¶20

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.12.15 18:04:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pappu Lodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Lodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Satya Narayan Vs Dr. Vijayendra Vice Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Deva Univ. of Agri. and Teco. Ayodhya and Another

Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla Vs Amit Mohan Prasad Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical/Health Luckno

Amit Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hariram and Ors. Vs Khubiram and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Alias Munna Singh Vs Dr. Anil Banal, D.M., Pratapgarh

Ajit Kumar Vs Shri Subhash Chand Sharma, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko.