Allowed

Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/29346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail in a POCSO and sexual assault case during pendency of trial. The applicant, accused with no prior records, was released on personal bond and two local sureties. Conditions include attending all sittings, no adjournment seeking, and consequences for misuse via proclamation and IPC charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount.

Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Munna Prasad Yadav,Ramesh Kumar Pandey,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Pandey,Vinay Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 171 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354-B I.P.C. and 9/10 POCSO Act, Police Station-Allahganj, District-Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The version of the present first information report lodged by the informant against the applicant is that his brother went to Jalalabad and Bhabhi went to her sister's house and her niece and nephew were alone in their house, the applicant and his brother came and tried to out rage the modesty of the victim causing bite injury on her left shoulder. When the victim raised her alarm the applicant and his brother ran away.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report lodged by the informant is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. Due to hot talk between the applicant and the informant, as they are neighbours to each other, the present case has been engineered against him with false and frivolous allegations. There are contradictions in the version of the first information report, in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164. The offence alleged against the applicant is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence is maximum to 7 years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 21st April, 2022. The applicant has undergone more than seven months of incarceration.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

¶18

Sushil/-

¶19

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.14 10:26:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu 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

Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Lalla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Babita Sharma Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sharukh Vs State of U.P.