Allowed

Dheerendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023BAIL/38820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Dheerendra Pratap Singh, accused of rape against a minor under POCSO Act sections. The court cited jail overcrowding, lack of victim support in the FIR, and lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions to appear before the Trial Court.

Dheerendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177310

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38820 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dheerendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepesh Kumar Ojha,Akhil Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

List of fresh cases have been revised.

¶8

Today lawyers are on strike. The liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed because lawyers are abstaining from Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A informs that notice has been served on informant but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶10

Heard learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

There is allegation against the applicant of committing of offence of rape against a minor girl and implication under Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act has also been made.

¶12

It appears that the victim has been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the allegation made against the applicant in the FIR. The applicant is in jail since 31.01.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶13

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court

¶15

in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Dheerendra Pratap Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2023, under Sections- 376-AB IPC, Section 5m and 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Gola, District- Gorakhpur, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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 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.

¶22

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶23

ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.

¶26

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶27

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 Rohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dheerendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheerendra Pratap Singh 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

Teejuram Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Raj Kumar @ Raj Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramsanehi Vs State of U.P.

Arun Prajapati @ Arun Vs State of U.P.