Allowed

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/22813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC 431 regarding rape allegations under IPC 376 DA and POCSO, the High Court released the applicant on bail regarding medical evidence did not support the prosecution story and he had clean antecedents pending trial. Conditions were imposed regarding court attendance. Lefts.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and no misuse of liberty.

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131421

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22813 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Jay Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kumar Rai,Anjali Jaiswal,Rajeev Giri

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

In spite of the fact that the names of Mr. Aditya Kumar Rai, Ms. Anjali Jaiswal and Mr. Rajeev Giri are duly published in the cause list as counsel for first informant/opposite party-2, neither they nor anyone on their behalf is present to oppose this bail application

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.063 of 2023, under Section 376 DA IPC and Section 5G/6 Pocso Act, police station Nagra, district Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 01.03.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 02.03.2023 was lodged by first informant-Salma (mother of the prosecutrix), which was registered as Case Crime No.0063 of 2023, under Section 376 DA IPC and Section 4/5G Pocso Act, police station Nagra, district Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Deepu Chaurasiya, Mukendar Dom and Akhilesh Ram have been nominated as named accused.

¶11

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 02.03.2023 is that the named accused are alleged to have dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by forcibly committing rape upon her repeatedly.

¶12

After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged on 02.03.2023, Investigating OfÏcer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. He first recorded statement of the first informant and thereafter that of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which is on record at page 27 of the paper book, has supported the

¶13

prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined. The Doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix did not find any signs on her body so as to denote commission of sexual assault. With regard to the private part of the prosecutrix the Doctor has discussed the same, which is at page 46 of the paper book. However, no injury was found by the Doctor even on the private parts of the prosecutrix. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is on record at page 31 of the paper book, wherein also she has rejoined her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that though applicant is named in the FIR but he is innocent. The present criminal proceedings have been initiated maliciously, inasmuch as, the same has been engineered for extraneous consideration. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. He has then referred to the FIR and the medical report and on basis thereof he has doubted the age of the prosecutrix. According to the learned counsel for applicant, in view of the categorical medical opinion it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was aged about 14 years only. With reference to the above and specially the document occurring at page 46 of the paper book, the learned counsel for applicant contends that integrity of the prosecutrix is itself doubtful. On the above premise, he contends that offence complained of against the applicant is not made out. Even otherwise, the applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 02.03.2023. As such he has undergone more than four months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶15

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 14 years. As per statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 CrPC, named accused are guilty of dislodging her modesty forcibly and repeatedly. However, the learned AGA could not explain as to why the age of the prosecutrix was not medically determined when the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is clearly contradicted

¶16

by the medical opinion as extracted at page 47 of the paper book.

¶17

Having heard the leaned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, as per the medical opinion, which is at page 47 of the paper book, the age of the prosecutrix is above 14 years, the medical opinion occurring at page 46 of the paper book clearly disapproves the credibility of the prosecutrix, the police report in term of Section 173(2) CrPC has already been submitted therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶21

(ii) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.

¶22

(iii) 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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶24

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 sufÏcient 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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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 the condition mentioned above.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.7.2023. Rks.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya 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

Kari Mohammad Akram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Vaseem Haider Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Pranjal Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.