Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022BAIL/29228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court found the case fit for bail for the applicant, Rahul, accused under Section 376-D IPC and POCSO. The court refused to form an opinion on merits but imposed strict conditions for trial attendance, warning of abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions.

Rahul 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. - 29228 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Akhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.436 of 2021, under Section 376-D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Jhangha, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

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 the impugned FIR, there are 8 persons named including the applicant but the victim has assigned the role for committing rape upon her against four accused persons including the applicant. The incident took place on 10.12.2021 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 11.12.2021 but no plausible explanation has been mentioned. The victim has refused for internal and external examination. Further contention is that due to land dispute, the first informant has lodged the impugned FIR on false and fabricated ground. There is material contradiction in the statement of the victim. The victim in her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that there is video clip of the alleged incident, but as per investigation, no video clip has been found. Further contention is that similarly placed co-accused Soljar @ Ajeet has already been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18558 of 2022, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. 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

¶8

law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2022 having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has 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- Rahul 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 :- 18.11.2022

¶20

Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.18 16:26:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Lalloo Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Fahimuddin @ Fahmuddin Vs State of U.P.

Ram Lawat Sharma @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.and a