Allowed

Ali Raj v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/33087/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Ali Raj, who was arrested for offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and the POCSO Act. The court observed that the victim consented to the marriage and recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Bail was allowed subject to personal bond and heavy sureties, with strict conditions regarding attendance and non-harassment of the victim.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ali Raj is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions including appearance in court on dates for evidence and framing of charges and non

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176777

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33087 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ali Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

It is fresh case before this court. Due to strike the lawyers are abstaining from te court.

¶7

However, the court has perused the record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ali Raj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 81 of 2023, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar.

¶9

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The first information report of the incident has been lodged after the delay of 17 days without any plausible explanation by mentioning therein that applicant has enticed and fled away her daughter Durga Devi aged about 21 years. After recovery of athe victim her statement has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she is aged about 21 days and not supported the prosecution version. The victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that earlier her marriage was solemnized, from the first husband she has a male child about 21 months but but her earlier husband used to torture her, therefore, she left her house and solemnized marriage with the applicant (Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the affidavit.). The victim is consenting party with the applicant. 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 applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall

¶10

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. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2023 having no criminal history.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the fact that victim has solemnized the marriage with the applicant.

¶12

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Ali Raj, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶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

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 12.9.2023

¶24

RPD

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ali Raj v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Raj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Singh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gauri Shankar Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjney Tripathi @ Madhav Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vineet Vs State of U.P.