Allowed

Jitendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 May 2022BAIL/53672/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail application filed by Jitendra accused under Sections 363, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court treated it as a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount subject to specific conditions including attendance in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53672 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Sri Shikhar Awasti, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Abida Syed, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice no one has present on behalf of the first informant even in the revised call.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Jitendra under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police StationBabugarh District- Hapur during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Hapur vide order dated 01.07.2021.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 14.05.2021 has been lodged by mother of the victim against the applicant and one other named persons stating therein that 13.05.2021 at about 11 A.M. her minor daughter aged about 17 years has gone to ease herself in the field by her grand mother then applicant and other co-accused persons enticed away his minor daughter on their motorcycle,the mother-in-law of the first informant raised an alarm but they didn't stop. On the date of the incident, the first informant went to his parental home and his son got the information through phone.

¶9

After lodging the first information report, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C on 15.06.2021; medical examination of the victim was conducted on 15.06.2021 at 02:35 P.M.; statement of the victim was

¶10

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 16.06.2021. After recording the statement of the other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused Samayveer on 23.06.2021 under Section 363, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and under Section 363, 368 of I.P.C. The applicant was arrested on 16.06.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per High School Certificate of the victim, the age of the victim was 17 years 4 months and 18 days at the time of the incident. The victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that victim has stated in her statement that she has left her house on her own free and sweet will and she was travelled with the applicant from Hapur to Garh Chaupala and other several places and she solemnized marriage with the applicant in a temple on 14.05.2021.

¶12

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶15

(a) As per High School Certificate of the victim, the age of the victim was 17 years 4 months and 18 days at the time of the incident;

¶16

(b) Victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

¶17

(c) Victim has stated in her statement that she has left her house on her own free and sweet will and she was travelled with the applicant from Hapur to Garh Chaupala and other several places and she solemnized marriage with the applicant in a

¶18

temple on 14.05.2021;

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let applicant, Jitendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶27

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶29

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶31

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶32

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶33

Order Date :- 31.5.2022 Ishan

¶34

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.03 10:45:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni Vs State of U.P.

Irfan @ Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tirath Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P and Another

Birendra Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another