Allowed

Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/15830/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Prakash in a POCSTO and rape case pending trial. The court considered the lack of injuries on the victim, no medical opinion of rape, delay in FIR, and contradictions in the victim's statement. Bail was granted with strict conditions regarding presence, cooperation, and trial conclusion timeline, citing Data Ram.

What did the court decide?

Ordering the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15830 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Pandey,Shiva Ji Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Despite opportunity having been granted to the learned counsel for the complainant, no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.162 of 2021, under Sections 363, 328, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per medical report, the victim is aged about 16 years and no internal or external injury has been found on the body of the victim. There is material contradictions in the statement of the victim. The doctor has also not opined exact option of rape. There is a delay of three months in lodging the impugned FIR but no explanation has been offered. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2021 having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Prakash involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶13

(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 him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶16

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

¶20

Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.12.12 13:41:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jaikishun Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Yagyapal @ Karua Vs State of U.P.

Kamaruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Chaudhary Vs the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

Kamlesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.