Allowed

Roshan Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023ABAIL/12508/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO. The order was passed without expressing an opinion on merits, directing enrollment of a personal bond and sureties along with specific conditions for release.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to eight specific conditions.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227205

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12508 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Roshan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ramesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.582 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)12 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case in fact no such incident has taken place. The applicant is aged about 57 years and is also not named in the FIR. As per medical report, the victim was found aged about 18 years at the time of alleged incident and also there is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. As per medical report also, there is no sign of rape. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she went with co-accused Vinod Kushwah and stay with him about five months. In statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has also not levelled any allegation of rape against the applicant. He further submits that after investigation, the investigating officer has not found any credible evidence against the applicant, hence, exonerated the name of the applicant and submitted charge sheet against coaccused person and the court below has summoned the coaccused person and summoned to face trial. He further submits that being dissatisfied with the final report against the applicant, the informant filed protest petition, thereafter, the applicant was summoned. Earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.33279 of 2018 and this

¶10

Court vide order dated 01.10.2018 has granted interim order in favour of the applicant. He has further submitted that in the meantime the court below issued warrant against the applicant on the basis of judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. CBI . He further submits that the applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 32 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A.as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Roshan Lal, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) 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 officer.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(iv) 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

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex

¶19

Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

(vi) 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roshan Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Qamruzzama Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Montu Gupta @ Manish Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Uzer Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohil Vs State of U.P.