This court allowed a bail application from an applicant falsely implicated in gang rape and POCSO accused. Bail granted with sureties and conditions to prevent witness intimidation and ensure trial cooperation.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions to cooperate and not tamper with evidence.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14793 of 2022
Applicant :- Sunil Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in spite of notice served upon him.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.95 of 2017, under Sections 506, 376(D) I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act and Section 5 (g)/6 POCSO Act 2012, P.S. Bhaluani, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; as per F.I.R. version, five persons committed gang rape upon victim; the name of applicant surfaced in the second statement of victim. It is next contended that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and as per statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.p.C., she averred that she was in love affair with co-accused Upendra Chauhan and he developed physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage; age of the victim is nineteen years; the statement recorded under Sections 161Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborated to each other as well as not supporting the version of F.I.R. It is further argued that co-accused Upendra Chauhan has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 6144 of 2017; the applicant has no criminal history. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Sunil Chauhan, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Meenu
Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.08.18 18:00:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a case for release on bail in custody case involving sexual offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Sunil Chauhan
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
