Allowed

Jeetu Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2022BAIL/35721/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant accused of rape of a minor. The court held that the victim was likely a major based on medical reports and that the relationship was consensual despite family opposition. Bail was granted due to jail overcrowding and lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Jeetu Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35721 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jeetu Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Randhir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Jeetu Nishad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2022, under Sections 376,504,506 IPC and section 5/6 of POCSO Act Police Station Industrial Area, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of rape of minor girl in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the age of the victim as per report of the radiologist is above 16 years and below 18 years.Given margin of two years on the higher side she can be considered to be major.She has stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she has consenting relationship with the applicant but his parents have refused to permit their marriage. They have abused her parents when they went for talking to them regarding her marriage with applicant. The applicant is in jail since 4.6.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that victim and the applicant are willing to marry. He has no objection if applicant is granted bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

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, considering 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 considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a

¶11

case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.9.2022

¶21

Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.16 11:06:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeetu Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu Nishad 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

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Zainuddin @ Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sakhawat Vs State of U.P.