Allowed

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/34970/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 80 granted bail to applicant Rajendra in a case involving sexual assault and IPC offences, releasing him on personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions regarding witness protection and trial attendance, noting material contradictions in victim statements as a factor.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajendra released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in equal amount, subject to specific conditions of appearing in court and refraining from criminal activities.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34970 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Rajendra under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationHari Parvat, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Agra vide order dated 29.07.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 30.06.2021 has been lodged against the unknown person under Sections 354, 323, 506 of I.P.C. stating therein that on 06.06.2021 at about 11:00 P.M. when the victim was going for a walk towards the temple, an unknown person came and grabbed her and dragged her inside the bush, broke her nada of the pajamas by pressing her neck and tried to commit rape her, chewed on her temporal, when she screamed, he started beating her by pressing her neck in the tree and when she shouted, he pressed her mouth and said, don't make a sound or else he will strangle the victim.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, the statement of the victim was under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. on 04.07.2021 and 09.07.2021 respectively. During the course of investigation, medical examination has not been conduced; after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant was arrested on 07.07.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The first information report has been lodged

¶10

after about 24 days of the incident. The first information report has been lodged for an offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 of the I.P.C. but thereafter, about one month and 8 days victim has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant has entered his finger in her private part. It is further submitted that victim has not medically examined by the Investigating Officer.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) There is material contradiction and improvement in the allegation of the first information report as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to state the same at this stage.

¶15

(b) There is no other evidence with regard to the alleged offence except the statement.

¶16

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶17

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the

¶18

merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant, Rajendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

(iv) 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 trial court.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶25

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶27

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led

¶29

unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶30

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶31

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶32

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Ishan

¶33

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.02.14 10:25:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

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

Mundar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile 'X' through His Father Vs State of Up and Anr.

Akash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shahjad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Babu Lall Nishad Vs State of U.P.