Allowed

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023BAIL/24814/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the bail application of the accused applicant Rahul Singh in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity with a co-accused. The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and filing of computer-generated order copy.

Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

E-Court

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24814 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Rahul Mishra,Sanjay Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused/applicant in Case Crime No. 139 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 376D, 342 IPC and Section 6/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Heard Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the accused/applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the accused/applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. In the present case co-accused person namely Arun Kumar, whose case stands on the same footing, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8435 of 2019, as such, the accused/applicant should also be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application of the accused/applicant but did not dispute the parity.

¶10

Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind that co-accused

¶12

person having similar role has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, I am of the view that the accused/applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Rahul Singh involved in Case Crime No. 139 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 376D, 342 IPC and Section 6/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, 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;

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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. 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.

¶18

(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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall

¶19

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶25

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Arun

¶27

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

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Kumar @ Dheeraj Vs State of U.P.

Satya Prakash Rao Vs State of U.P.

Shabbir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.