Allowed

Raj Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/18670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Raj Gautam, charged under POCSO and IPC sections, was allowed. The High Court found the applicant had made out a case for bail, given the lack of initial allegations against him and his lack of antecedents, imposing standard conditions on release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18670 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Raj Gautam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366-A I.P.C. and Section 11/12 POCSO Act, Police StationJogiya Udaipur, District- Siddharth Nagar during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the first information report has been lodged against the applicant without proper details and just only to implicate the applicant. He next submitted that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation against the applicant whereas she has made allegations against the co-accused- Surya Pratap, who is her boyfriend stating that she went with the co-accusedSurya Pratap on her own will. He further submitted that the co-accused- Surya Pratap has already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18816 of 2022 vide order dated 20.5.2022. He also submitted that the case of the applicant is on better footing in comparison to co-accused- Surya Pratap, who has already been released on bail. He further submitted that there are no chances of applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is in jail since 7.3.2022 and there is no other criminal antecedent against the applicant.

¶8

Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact .

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Raj Gautam involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶15

(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 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Rameez

¶17

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.05.25 17:49:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Gautam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faim Vs State of U.P.

Raju Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhaiya Lal Gaud Vs State of U.P.

Kaleem Vs State of U.P.

Murslin Vs State of U.P.