Allowed

Raju Verma @ Katte v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022/1969/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh J. granted bail to the applicant in a case involving Sections 363 IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act. The court noted the victim's demolition of the prosecution story under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the absence of abduction elements under Section 363 IPC, and the lack of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering, and potential proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Raju Verma @ Katte Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1969 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Verma @ Katte Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 441 of 2021, under Section 363 IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station - Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that the victim herself has demolished the story of the prosecution in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He added that the ingredients of Section 363 IPC could not attract in the instant matter as the statement itself is evident that the victim herself went away with the applicant and it is not a case where the present applicant has abducted the victim or enticed away her. He next added that the applicant has no any previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 18.12.2021. He submits that charge sheet has been filed and as such there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complaint vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the present applicant and he is named in the first information report and as such he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing for the State also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that the victim herself under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has demolished the story of the prosecution; further the argument of counsel for the applicant prima facie seems to be correct as far as the applicability of ingredients of Section 363 IPC is concerned; the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 18.12.2021. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Raju Verma @ Katte involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned,

¶13

with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 3.11.2022 KR

¶21

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.10 09:46:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Verma @ Katte v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Verma @ Katte v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Mashroof Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Monu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Pandey @ Shiva and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Mahesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.