Allowed

Rachit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022BAIL/7818/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Rachit in a rape case involving his wife. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents and held that the applicant satisfied bail requirements without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to verification of sureties and eight specific conditions including no tampering with evidence and regular appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7818 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rachit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemlata Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Saini

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ranjit Kumar Yadav holding brief of Shri Rajeev Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rachit, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under Section 376 IPC Police Station Kotwali City, District- Bijnor, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation in the First Information Report regarding commission of rape against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is clear from the First Information Report that victim married the applicant on 1.3.2021 and went alongwith him in the hotel on 2.3.2021.There they have made physical relationship.Thereafter applicant left her. It is further submitted that applicant has filed application under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act on 12.3.2021 and by way of counter blast proceedings, the First Information Report was lodged on 6.4.2021.The victim is major girl. The applicant is in jail since 16.12.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, 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

¶11

recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 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.

¶12

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and 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

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and

¶19

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

¶22

Atul kr. sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.22 17:52:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rachit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachit 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

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Purwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramji Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu Vs State of U.P., through Secretary Home Govt. of U.P.

Sahul Sonkar Vs State of U.P.