Single judge of Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused in a rape case involving property dispute motivations and release on personal and local sureties despite heinous offence allegations.
Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55900 of 2022 Applicant :- Guddu @ Peetam Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Apul Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Guddu @ Peetam Lal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.423 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 376-D I.P.C., Police Station-Bisalpur Kotwali, DistrictPilibhit, during pendency of trial.
As per prosecution version, the FIR has been lodged on 21.07.2022 at 07:14 hours against three named accused including the applicant regarding the incident dated 07.06.2022 wherein details have been given for commission of rape upon the victim by the aforesaid accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is cousin brother-in-law (Chachera Devar) whereas other coaccused Mukesh and Jeevan Ram are brother-in-law of the victim, who herself has lodged the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed family tree on page 8 of the application to show the aforesaid. He submits that due to property dispute between the families quarrel took place in which proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. were drawn against the victim's husband Vinod. Due to property dispute and the aforesaid proceedings, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein variations are there, it is also clear that the FIR has been lodged to wreck-vengeance due to property dispute and the fact that on the date of incident i.e. 07.06.2022, victim's husband was behind bars for creating nuisance. The medical report also does not support the prosecution version. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2022. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Guddu @ Peetam Lal involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 8.12.2022/Rahul.
Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.12.15 12:38:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a rape case involving Sections 376-D IPC.
Whether the family dispute and variations in investigation reports warrant the release of the accused on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. v. Sahab SinghReferred
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Guddu @ Peetam Lal
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
