Allowed

Shatrohan Second Bail v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022/4247/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant jailed for over eight years under Sections 376, 306 IPC, ruling that as all fact witnesses were examined, the period of incarceration alone justified release, citing Supreme Court precedents, without delving into case merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, along with eight specific conditions regarding trial attendance, evidence bans, and stay abroad.

Shatrohan Second Bail Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4247 of 2019 Applicant :- Shatrohan Second Bail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyamji Dixit,Ramendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ramendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶4

This is the second bail application. The first bail application bearing Bail Case No.8141 of 2014, on the information of Sri G.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, has been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 05.06.2017 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary, however, the Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary) has released the said bail application on 24.11.2020.

¶5

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 07.04.2014 in Case Crime No.37 of 2014, under Sections 452, 376, 354-A & 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Machhrehta, District-Sitapur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶7

The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which was registered under Sections 452, 354-A, 306 & 511 I.P.C.

¶8

As per F.I.R., the present applicant, who is maternal uncle of the victim, tried to molest her when she was alone in her house as her husband was out of town. Since the victim is said to have raised alarm, resultant thereof, some villagers gathered in her house and later on the victim committed suicide.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is absolutely false story inasmuch as the present applicant has never committed such offence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the injury report which indicates that except the head area the victim sustained absolute burn injury. In such condition, she could have not recorded any statement but as per

¶11

the prosecution story the statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer at the hospital in the presence of one lady Constable wherein she has alleged that when she was alone in her house the present applicant committed rape with her. In her statement (Annexure No.SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.04.2022), she has allegedly stated that since at that point of time there was one function in the vicinity of the house of the victim where loudspeaker was sounding loudly, therefore, no one could hear the cry of the victim.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant was older than the victim and a single person who is older than the victim cannot execute the offence of rape. Besides, if the victim sustains a serious burn injuries, about 7080% as shown in the medical chart, such victim may not be able to record her statement. Therefore, the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. Charge-sheet has been filed and to the best of his information all the facts witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconding the present applicant or tampering any witnesses, hence, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail considering the period of incarceration with effect from 07.04.2014 i.e. more than eight years.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶14

Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶16

Notably, he has submitted that this court vide order dated 13.04.2022 directed the trial court to examine the maximum fact witnesses as many as possible by fixing short dates and to apprise the status of trial.

¶17

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned trial court has submitted a report dated 07.05.2022, which is on record. The status report reveals that all facts witnesses have been examined. To be more precise PW-1 to PW-9 have been

¶18

examined, PW-6 is a Doctor. Some fact witnesses, namely, Sri Ram Pal, Sri Ram, Ram Avtar and Chhotkanne have been discharged from recording their statement. The remaining formal witnesses i.e. Investigating Officer, F.I.R. Writer etc. are yet to be examined, for that, the required process has been taken by the learned trial court.

¶19

In the present case, it appears that the examination of the prosecution witnesses would be completed very soon inasmuch as only formal witnesses are required to be examined. Thereafter, the defence witnesses would be examined and the trial would be concluded by following due procedure of law, but in any case, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

¶20

Since all the fact witnesses have been examined, therefore in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505, the bail application of the present applicant may be considered having regard his period of incarceration i.e. more than eight years. In such situation, the present applicant may be granted bail in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020.

¶21

Therefore, considering the aforesaid fact that all the fact witnesses have been examined and the present applicant is in jail for more than eight years, hence, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: K.A. Najeeb (Supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and without entering into merits of the issue, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶22

Let the applicant-Shatrohan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶23

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶24

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court

¶25

may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶28

(v) The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶29

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶30

Digitally signed by SURESH CHANDRA Date: 2022.05.18 18:44:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shatrohan Second Bail v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatrohan Second Bail 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

Vijay Pratap Singh alias Gallan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Dal Singar Singh S/O Harish Chandra Singh (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home

Mahesh Kumar Tiwari Fourth Bail Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravendra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Sharvan Kumar @ Putri Vs State of U.P.

Anand Kumar Singh @ Shyam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.