The High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant implicated in gang rape and enticement of a minor girl cases, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year and imposing standard bail conditions.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions, with direction to conclude trial within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30997 of 2019
Applicant :- Chandan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The applicant has been implicated in this case on account of the allegation of commission of gang rape besides the allegation of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry.
Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused is being tried vide S.T. No. 90 of 2020, State of U.P. vs. Prakash Chauhan, wherein the victim has been examined as P.W-1. In the statement of victim recorded by the trial court, she has not made any allegation against any of the accused mentioned in the FIR, including the applicant. He has further submitted that the victim has been declared hostile in the aforesaid trial. Apart from the above facts, the applicant is in jail since 11.09.2018. He has criminal history of 5 cases including the present case. In the trial, there are 16 prosecution witnesses to be examined. He has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Chandan Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 113 of 2018, under Sections- 363, 366, 376-D IPC and 3/4 and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Baburi, District- Chandauli, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 / Rohit
Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.03 14:30:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is entailed to the applicant charged with gang rape and enticement of a minor girl.
Whether duration of trial to be concluded expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Referred¶9
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandan Pandey
State of U.P.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
Rohit Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
