Allowed

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022BAIL/8683/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed the bail application of the applicant charged with offences under IPC and POCSO. The court held that the applicant made out a case for bail and released him on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of attending trial dates and not seeking adjournments.

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8683 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that notice issued to the first informant has been served. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the first informant to press this application for bail inspite of service of notice.

¶9

It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 21.07.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 29.07.2021 was lodged by first informant- Gurubux Singh Jatav (maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix/ nana) and was registered as Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons, namely, Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt, Rahul, Matashri Karualal, Sonu, Pradeep Kumar and Sethi have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

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 prosecutrix was recovered on 29.08.2021. Thereafter, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. To the contrary, prosecutrix has stated that she had accompanied the applicant out of her own sweet will. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined

¶11

externally, however, she refused her internal medical examination. In the opinion of Medical Officer, the age of prosecutrix was about 19 years. Thereafter, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein also she has reiterated her earlier statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix has also stated that she and the applicant have solemnized marriage and were living together as husband and wife.

¶12

During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer also recovered High School certificate/mark-sheet of the prosecutrix, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 15.04.2004. The incident in question has occurred on 21.07.2021. As such, prosecutrix was aged about 17 years, 3 months and 6 days on the date of occurrence.

¶13

In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to the applicant, he opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 01.12.2021, whereby applicant alone has been charge-sheeted under sections 363, 366, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, whereas other named accused have been exculpated.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is named as well as charge-sheeted accused, but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

¶15

It is next contended that prosecutrix is a consenting party. No fraud or coercion has been framed by applicant with the prosecutrix.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court to the statement of prosecutrix as recorded under sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, he contends that it is an admitted case that the prosecutrix and the applicant have solemnized marriage and they were living together as husband and wife before the prosecutrix was recovered/arrested by the police. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that none of the offence as alleged against applicant are made out. He has then referred to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and on basis thereof, he contends that even

¶17

though the prosecutrix/bride is below 18 years of age, but that by itself will not render marriage of the parties as void.

¶18

It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 18.09.2021. As such, he has undergone more than 7 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant. As such, evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. Resultantly, custodial arrest of the applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

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, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Prosecutrix is minor as she is below 18 years of age. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned cousnel for the applicant.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the 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.

¶21

Let the applicant, Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 Saif

¶29

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.04.25 10:39:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Rashid @ Loha Vs State of U.P.

Muzammil Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Alok Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others