Allowed

Smt. Sangeeta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022BAIL/53153/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Smt. Sangeeta, a woman accused in a POCSO and sexual offence case involving rape and conspiracy. She had been in custody for over six months. The court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Smt. Sangeeta upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions of attendance and conduct during trial.

Smt. Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53153 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sangeeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55099 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Anil Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

AND

¶8

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4086 of 2022

¶9

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶11

Heard Mr. P.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Devesh Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants- Smt. Sangeeta, Anil Maurya and Sonu Maurya, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant- Jitendra Kumar and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

These applications for bail have been filed by applicants- Smt. Sangeeta, Anil Maurya, Sonu Maurya and Jitendra Kumar seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.504 of 2021, under Sections- 376D, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sections- 5J(II), 5G(6) POCSO Act, Police StationRobertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of trial.

¶14

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.53153 of 2021 (Smt. Sangeeta Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 11.03.2022

¶15

and this Court passed following order.

¶16

"Heard Mr. Devesh Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.

¶17

On 14.02.2022 this Court passed following order:-

¶18

"Heard Mr. Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶19

Perused the record.

¶20

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that following bail applications filed by co-accused are already pending before this Court.

¶21

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4086 of 2022 (Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others).

¶22

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55099 of 2021 (Anil Maurya and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).

¶23

In view of above, connect aforementioned criminal misc. bail applications along with this bail application.

¶24

Matter shall re-appear as fresh on 28.02.2022 along with connected matters."

¶25

However, aforementioned order dated 14.02.2022 has not been complied with by the registry.

¶26

In view of above, hearing of present application for bail is adjourned.

¶27

Matter shall reappear as fresh on 25.03.2022.

¶28

Office shall ensure that the earlier order dated 14.02.2022 is positively complied with by the next date fixed."

¶29

Pursuant to above order dated 11.03.2022 aforementioned bail application stood connected and have now been listed together.

¶30

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4086 of 2022 (Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), which is on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to file rejoinder affidavit to the same.

¶32

Learned A.G.A. is directed to file counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55099 of 2021 (Anil Maurya & another Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) within four weeks. Applicants will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶33

List Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.4086 of 2022 and 55099 of 2021 after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶34

Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 16.04.2021 was lodged by first informant- Ram Bhajan Maurya (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.504 of 2021, under Sections- 376D, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Sangeeta, Anil Maurya and Sonu Maurya have been nominated as named accused.

¶35

After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2021. Same is on record at page-27 of the paper book. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined. However, the medico legal report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record.

¶36

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that the prosecutrix in her statement before the Doctor has supported the prosecution story. Samples were taken from the body of the prosecutrix from pathological examination. Same shows positive result. The prosecutrix is in family way and the age of fetus has been determined as 16 weeks and 4 days. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which prosecutrix has reiterated her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement before the Doctor. However, the prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has implicated one Jitendra Kumar also in the crime in question. Investigating Officer, on the basis of statements of first informant, prosecutrix and other witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C., the material referred to above as well as other material collected by him during the course of investigation, which according to him are adverse to the named/not named accused, opined to submit a charge-sheet as prima-facie the criminality of the named accused and one Jitendra Kumar was established in the crime in question. He accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2021, whereby applicants have been charge-sheeted under sections 376D, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 5J(II) and 5G/6 POCSO Act.

¶37

Mr. P.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant- Smt. Sangeeta submits

¶38

that though applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, but she is innocent. Applicant is a lady and by virtue of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., she is liable to be enlarged on bail. The alleged offence cannot be said to have been committed by her.

¶39

It is lastly contended that applicant is a woman of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 19.09.2021. As such, she has undergone more than six and a half months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶40

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused. As such, she does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the legal and factual submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and accusations made but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶42

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

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL

¶46

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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by applicant, shall have serious repercussion on 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 condition mentioned above.

¶50

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Saif

¶51

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.04.14 12:21:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sangeeta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangeeta 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

Talib Vs State of U.P.