Allowed

Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022BAIL/48814/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the bail application of an accused facing charges under IPC and POCSO Act. The bail was granted primarily because key prosecution witnesses declared themselves hostile and denied the prosecution story, while the accused has been in custody continuously.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Rohit Kumar Bhartiya on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions of attendance and non-tampering.

Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48814 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 465 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that during the course of trial, statement of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 mother of the victim and PW-2 victim herself, has been recorded.

¶9

Perusal of the statement of PW-1 shows that she has not supported the prosecution story at all and has been declared hostile. She, in her statement, has stated that she does not know as to who enticed her daughter. In fact, her daughter had gone to her aunt's house. She has further denied the fact that applicant Rohit had given some intoxicant substance to her daughter at Virendra Poly Clinic and had committed rape on her.

¶10

On her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she has stated that she had not given any such statement to the police. During her cross-examination, she has stated that only information was given to the police regarding missing of her daughter and presently, her daughter is at her house and the Investigating Officer had not interrogated her.

¶11

Further, PW-2 is the victim herself and she, in her examination-in-chief, has stated that on 23.10.2021 at

¶12

6:00 PM, she had gone at her aunt's house and requested her aunt not to disclose this fact to anyone, however, her family members had informed the police regarding her missing, thereafter, police came at her aunt's house and had taken her to her own house. It is further stated that applicant Rohit had not met her. The factum of applicant Rohit taking her to Virendra Poly Clinic and committing rape on her after intoxicating her, has been specifically denied by the victim.

¶13

On her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she has categorically stated that said statement was given by her under the threat of police. During her cross-examination also, she has stated that the applicant Rohit had not committed any indecent act with her and in fact, she had gone to her aunt's house.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.10.2021 and has continuously co-operated in the process of trial and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in near future due to heavy dockets. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that during the course of trial, both the prosecution witnesses, who are mother of the victim and the victim herself, have not supported the prosecution story at all and as such, have been declared hostile.

¶16

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that during the course of trial, both the prosecution witnesses, who are mother of the victim and the victim herself, have not supported the prosecution story at all and have been declared hostile. During crossexamination, they have also not supported the prosecution story and have stated that the applicant Rohit had not committed rape on the victim. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2021 and has continuously co-operated in the process of trial and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in near future because of heavy dockets. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of

¶18

the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶20

The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses.

¶21

The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶22

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 Nadim

¶26

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.11.24 17:01:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Bhartiya @ Rohit Jaker 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dildar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamveer Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of U.P.

Amarpal Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Nishad Vs State of U.P.