Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49361 of 2021

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Devendra Kumar Mishra,Dhiresh Kumar,Vijai Shanker Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 446 of 2021, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur.

¶7

As per prosecution story, on 9.9.2021, applicant is said to have committed rape with the victim on the false pretext of marriage.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 9.9.2021 whereas the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2021 without any explanation. It is further submitted that as per medical report victim is aged about20 years. It is further submitted that the victim has been medically examined but there is no evidence of external or internal injury. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement said to have been recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged that applicant is known to her for about two year, which itself shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 14.09.2021 and has no criminal history. Chargesheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. However, any observation made herein-above, will not affect the trial of the case.

¶11

Let the applicant- Rashid, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.12.2022/RavindraKSingh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Alias Dhandu Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P. 3 Ohters

Mahip Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shyamdarash Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others