Allowed

Jitendra v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022BAIL/6905/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed bail to the applicant charged with abduction, attempt to marry a minor, and rape under multiple IPC sections and the POCSO Act, noting the absence of the informant and relative supportless of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions ensuring presence for evidence opening, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6905 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Narain Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Rahul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

As per office report dated 10.07.2020, notice has been served on the informant but no one has turned up to oppose the bail application.

¶7

There is allegation of abduction against the applicant of a minor child with intention to marry and gang rape in illegal confinement.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of rape has falsely been made against the applicant after he refused to marry the victim as is clear from her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The internal medical examination of the victim does not supports the prosecution case at all. The doctor has not given any opinion about the age of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Jitendra, involved in Case Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Sections- 363, 366, 376-D, 342, 323, 328 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Paikoliya, DistrictBasti, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and

¶12

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.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.31 09:56:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Dileep Verma Vs Union of India

Rajkishore Dwivedi Vs State of Up through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow

Mohit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Mehboob Vs State of U.P.

Golu Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.