Allowed

Amit Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/9624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a rape and cyber pornography case, noting the unexplained delay in FIR registration and absence of an independent eyewitness as key factors supporting release contingent upon a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9624 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prabhash Pandey, holding brief of learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0789 of 2021, under Sections 376 IPC and 67-A of I. T. Act, Police Station Sadar Bajar, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

As per the prosecution version informant had matrimonial dispute with her husband and the applicant, who is close relative, on the pretext of mediation between the parties invited her to different district and thereafter took her to Tanakpur and made her to stay in hotel where he committed offence of rape upon the informant after giving her substances on account of which she lost control over herself. It is further alleged that subsequent in point of time various messages were sent and informant was compelled to visit the accused and have physical relations.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the incident alleged in FIR is of 23.01.2021 whereafter FIR itself has been lodged on 25.10.2021. Submission is that delay of about 9 months in lodgement of FIR has not been explained. It is urged that whats app chats, which have been referred to in FIR and have been collected during the course of investigation, does not specifically support the contention that threat was such that the informant could take no steps to inform police during such period.

¶9

A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which certain photographs have been annexed in order to submit that none of the photographs are in compromising state and, therefore, the plea of threat or coercion is not established. Argument is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in order to coerce the in-laws including the husband, with whom matrimonial disputes

¶10

is going on. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.10.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶12

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained; there is no independent eye witness to the incident; the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶13

Let the applicant - Amit Saxena involved in aforesaid case crime 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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

¶19

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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 him in accordance with law.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:51:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Saxena v. State of U.P.

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

Anil Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P.