Allowed

Dharmendra Khatik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022BAIL/50257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Bail Application, the High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of enticement and sexual offences under IPC and POCSO. The court held it to be a fit case for bail, imposing conditions to ensure trial compliance and preventing abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and undertaking not to seek adjournments, appear in court, and not misuse liberty.

Dharmendra Khatik Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50257 of 2022 Applicant :- Dharmendra Khatik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

¶6

As per prosecution story, applicant is said to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant along with another minor girl of one Kishan Pal of his village.

¶7

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 further submitted that one of the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that rape was committed upon her in a running bus, however, another victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. denies commission of rape upon her by the applicant, which itself proves that story as set up is highly doubtful as no such act was ever committed by the applicant. It is further submitted that victims in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had itself admitted that they used to talk with the applicant on phone and it means they were known to applicant from before. It is further submitted that both the victims went with the applicant out of their own sweet will and after three days they were recovered and the victims have refused their medical examination. It is further submitted that as per school certificates, victims are aged between 16-17 years. The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2022 and has no criminal history. Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Khatik, 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.

¶11

(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

¶12

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 :- 29.11.2022/RavindraKSingh

¶20

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.29 16:33:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Khatik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Khatik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan Vs State of U.P and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheetla Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Qurashi Vs State of U.P.