The High Court granted bail to Satendra in a rape and kidnapping complaint case. The court noted the gravity of charges and cited Data Ram but found a fit case for bail subject to strict conditions.
Release on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions of attendance and conduct.
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. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45260 of 2022
Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.
By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Complaint Case No.01 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 and 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.
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 complaint case. As per high school mark sheet, the date of birth of the victim is 08.08.1999 and at the time of alleged incident, the victim was aged about 16 years and 9 months. Due to illegal demand of the complainant, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. As per statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim herself left her house with own free will, hence, no offence is made out against the applicant. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. The mother of the victim has also not alleged any allegation against the applicant in her statement. Further contention is that the victim has sent for medical examination but the victim has refused for her internal and external examination. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 22.05.2016 whereas the FIR has been lodged against coaccuded Radhey, thereafter, on the basis of statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, the investigating officer has submitted final report. Only on the basis of statement of the victim recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which the victim has stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed rape upon her, the applicant alongwith co-accused Radhey Lal have been summoned. 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 law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2022 having no previous criminal history.
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.
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.
Let the applicant- Satendra involved in the aforesaid complaint 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 :
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Ajeet
Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.22 13:22:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376D and POCSO Act Sections 3/4.
What conditions should be imposed upon the grant of bail to ensure fair trial and appearance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶10
_Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2_ · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Satendra
State Of U.P.
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
