Allowed

Talib v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022BAIL/51753/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a rape case, the High Court observed that the applicant had made out a case for bail despite being charge-sheeted. The court allowed bail on the personal bond of the applicant and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance, evidence presentation, and potential abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and complying with strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct during the trial.

Talib Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51753 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Talib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Talib, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case crime No. 252 of 2021, under sections 376, 312 IPC, Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District Shamli during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Record shows that first informant (prosecutrix) lodged an F.I.R. dated 16.8.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 252 of 2021, under sections 376, 312 IPC, Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District Shamli in which applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to trial. During course of trial, the prosecutrix was examined as P.W.1, whereas she has not supported the prosecution story. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody. Apart from above, applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. He is in jail since 27.8.2021. As such, he has undergone more than seven months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarge on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is a charge-sheeted accused. As such, applicant is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the facts as noted above.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case,

¶13

applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Talib , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶16

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶18

(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Arshad

¶21

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.04.08 16:58:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Talib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talib v. State of U.P.

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

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Ambasht Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.