Allowed

Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2023BAIL/18226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Shubham Srivastava in a rape case under IPC 376 and POCSO. The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail, directing him to execute a bond with sureties and adhere to six specific conditions during trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and trial proceedings.

Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18226 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Ojha,Janmejay Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that initially F.I.R. was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. and when the victim returned, Section 376 I.P.C. along with other allied Sections have been added. Learned counsel further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that out of love and affection, she had gone with the applicant, however in later part of her statement, she has levelled allegation of commission of rape upon the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that as per medical examination report, the victim is aged about 17 years and that the medical does not corroborate with the prosecution version. It thus contended that the victim is a consenting party and therefore, no offence against the applicant is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the

¶8

applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.04.2022 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava involved in Case Crime No.76 of 2022 under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shankergarh, District Prayagraj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

I. 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.

¶13

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶14

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶16

IV. 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Srivastava @ Lucky Srivastava 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

Manju Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Amar Khan Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up

Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Gond Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others