Allowed

Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2022BAIL/21615/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for Raj, charged with offences under IPC and POCSO. The court found the applicant made out a case based on delay in FIR, contrary statements, and lack of criminal history, granting bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to undertakings against adjournment and ensuring presence in court.

Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21615 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Ravat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Learned AGA informed that the notice on the opposite party No.2 has been served. Despite the notice has appeared.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Raj, who is involved in Case Crime No. 111 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of I.P.C. & 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Ata, District- Jalaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 04.06.2021, whereas, FIR was lodged on 09.06.2021 after a great delay of 5 days and no explanation of the same has been given by the prosecution. It is further contended that the allegations against the applicant made in the FIR were wrong; that the prosecutrix had stated in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. that she was above 18 years of age and that on 04.06.2022 of her own volition she had gone out to the house of her Mama Sri Ganga Prasad. It is further submitted that accused was in no way responsible for her disappearance on 04.06.2021. It is further contended that the prosecutrix herself refused the medical examination. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and no further investigation is required by the police. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other criminal history and is

¶9

in jail since 06.07.2021 and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. He also did not deny that the charge sheet had been submitted.

¶11

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.

¶12

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Raj be released on bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of I.P.C. & 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Ata, District- Jalaun on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(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 the court.

¶15

In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(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 Panel Code.

¶17

(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 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.5.2022 vkj

¶20

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.31 17:17:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Alok Kushwaha Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Haushila Rajbhar Vs state of up thru principal secretary home at lucknow

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

Milan Mandal Vs State of U.P.

Satveer Vs State of U.P.

Indu Devi Vs State of U.P.