Allowed

Haushila Rajbhar v. state of up thru principal secretary home at lucknow

Allahabad HC27 May 2022BAIL/10604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application regarding charges of molestation and rape, this single judge allowed bail, noting the applicant's lack of criminal history and no further investigation required, subject to strict conditions of presence and attendance in court.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts under strict conditions of court presence.

Haushila Rajbhar Vs state of up thru principal secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10604 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haushila Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Principal Secretary Home At Lucknow

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj and Pradeep Kumar learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hemant Kumar Singh learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Haushila Rajbhar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 123 of 2021, under Sections 354, 452, 506, 376 of I.P.C., Police Station- Didarganj, District- Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submits that simply because there was an enmity with the applicant with certain villagers in the village, on the instigation of the those villagers the instant first information report was got lodged by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the version of the first information report the alleged molestation and rape had taken place long back and that there was only a threatening which had been done by the applicant two days prior to the lodging of the first information report. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that even if the FIR was lodged promptly after the threatening was done then also the FIR ought to have been lodged on 4.9.2021 whereas in fact it was lodged on 6.9.2021. The further

¶10

submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that if the medical report is seen there is absolutely no injury on the body of the prosecutrix. He, therefore, submits that the allegation of rape was false and fabricated. It has been further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Further submission is that the charge sheet has been submitted and no further investigation is required. The applicant is in jail since 5.1.2022. Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and Sri Hemant Kumar Singh learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail. Sri Hemant Kumar Singh, relying upon Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act submitted that when sexual intercourse by the applicant was proved then a presumption was there with regard to the absence of consent. Learned AGA and the counsel for the first informant, however, could not deny the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and that the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶12

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Haushila Rajbhar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect

¶16

that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the court.

¶17

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.

¶18

(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 his under Section 229A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶19

(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. be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed on such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶20

(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 charges 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 PK

¶22

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.05.31 16:53:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haushila Rajbhar v. state of up thru principal secretary home at lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haushila Rajbhar v. state of up thru principal secretary home at lucknow

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

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Alok Kushwaha Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Savindra @ Kartik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Milan Mandal Vs State of U.P.