Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/38424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The Court observed that although the applicant was a charge-sheeted accused in a case involving rape and other offences with delayed FIR registration, no circumstances necessitating custodial arrest emerged from the record.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond with two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178924

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38424 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Manoj seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2023, under Sections 376, 342, 328, 506 IPC, P.S. Piluwa, District Etah, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 29.8.2022, a delayed application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. dated 9.5.2023 was filed by the prosecutrix Smt. Gyan Devi. The said application was allowed by concerned Magistrate. Resultantly, a delayed F.I.R. dated 01.06.2023 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 111 of 2023, under Sections 376, 342, 328, 506 IPC, P.S. Piluwa, District Etah. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Manoj has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named/charge sheeted accused, inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 10.6.2023, yet the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The prosecutrix is major. She is a willing and consenting party. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, upto this stage, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained. As per the medical opinion, nothing adverse has been found against applicant as no such sign was detected by the Doctor on the body of the deceased, so as to denote commission of sexual assault. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.6.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 3 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. i.e. charge sheet has already

¶10

been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant now stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends that 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.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named/charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. i.e. charge sheet has already been submitted. Therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant now stands crystallized. However, in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶17

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 HSM

¶23

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Raj Kumar Tiwari @ Vikki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bebi Vs State of U.P.

Aarif Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bharose Vs State of U.P.