Allowed

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022/12057/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application where the High Court released an applicant arrested under various IPC and POCSO sections. The Court granted bail relying on the constitutional right to life and liberty and the precedent set in Dataram Singh, citing substantial detention as a key factor.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions for presence in court and cooperation in trial.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12057 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The applicant, Rohit Singh , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially first information report dated 02.04.2017 was lodged as Case Crime No. 104 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)11 of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating therein that the sister of informant aged about 13 years had gone to her field from her house, but when she did not return up to 6:00 p.m. in the evening then the informant started searching of her sister and he had been informed that the accused-applicant, Rohit Singh, had enticed away her sister. The victim/ prosecutrix was recovered by the police on 02.04.2017 and her statements under Section 161 and 164 were recorded and false allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant, thereafter, during the course of investigation the case was converted into Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that according to the medical report the age of the prosecutrix is about 18 years, and no injury was found on the external or internal part of the body of the victim nor any sign of rape was found there.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the above noted case the applicant filed his bail application before the court below and the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Sitapur, vide order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Bail No. 87 of 2017 granted bail to the applicant. Copy of the bail order is filed as Annexure-5 to

¶8

the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after being released on bail the applicant had fallen ill and thereafter in connection with another case registered as Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 24 of 2018, under Section 25(1)b of Arms Act the applicant was arrested on 04.02.2018 and was sent to the District Jail, Sitapur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant could not inform his counsel regarding his illness and non appearance in the case, therefore, his counsel did not appear in the above noted case, thereafter, the court below issued non bailable warrant against the applicant on 22.07.2017, but neither the applicant was aware about the aforesaid order nor his counsel informed him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in connection to Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 24 of 2018, under Section 25(1)b of Arms Act the applicant was arrested on 04.02.2018, thereafter, he moved his bail application before the court below, which was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant filed bail application before this Court bearing Bail No. 10845 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 18.03.2021 granted bail to the applicant with certain conditions.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits as the applicant has already been issued non bailable warrant by the court below in Case Crime No. 104 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, he was not released and he moved bail application before the court below which was rejected vide order dated 02.07.2021. Aggrieved by the said order the present bail application has been filed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the reason has already been stated before the court below regarding non appearance of the applicant in the above case crime which was bonafide and was not deliberate. The applicant had fallen ill after being released on bail, therefore he could not appear before the court below. The present bail application be considered and the applicant be released sympathetically as the court below has already granted bail to the applicant vide order dated 13.07.2017 in Case Crime No. 104 of 2017.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will comply any condition imposed by this Court and shall regularly attend the proceedings of trial whenever date is fixed in the case before the court below.

¶15

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 06.06.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant was deliberately absconding and was not appearing before the court below, but he did not dispute this fact that the court below vide order dated 13.07.2017 has granted bail to the applicant in the aforesaid crime. He further submits that certain conditions be imposed upon the applicant so that he could not abscond again.

¶17

Considering the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, and considering the fact that the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 13.07.2017, and the applicant is in jail due to issuance of non bailable warrant dated 22.07.2017 issued against him and in other case crime he was granted bail by this Court and the applicant could not attend the court proceedings on six dates, the reasons have been stated, further after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and considering the fact that the substantial period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for bail in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 .

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant, Rohit Singh , involved in Case Crime No. 104 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶20

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶22

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶25

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) 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.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 Mustaqeem

¶31

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.02.17 17:12:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and 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

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shri Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.