The Single Judge allowed bail to an applicant charged with rape of a minor under IPC Section 376 and POCSO sections 5/6. The Court noted weak prosecution evidence and jail overcrowding under Article 21.
Released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties complying with specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11567 of 2021
Applicant :- Nagendra @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Dixit,Narendra Kumar,Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
There is allegation of rape of a minor girl against the applicant in the FIR.
Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The informant and victim have been examined as P.W-1 and P.W-2 before the trial court. They have denied the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR and have not supported the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Nagendra @ Guddu, involved in Case Crime No. 231 of 2020, under Section- 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kishni, District- Mainpuri, 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 subject to
following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 17.9.2022 Rohit
Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.17 15:19:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant charged with rape of a minor under POCSO Act is eligible for bail considering lack of criminal history and weak prosecution evidence.
Whether bail can be granted sparingly while addressing jail overcrowding without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶10
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Distinguished¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Nagendra @ Guddu
State of U.P.
Siddharth, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
