Allowed

Teejuram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/39706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 354A, 376D, and 506 IPC, granting bail to an applicant in a nine-year rape case as co-accused with no specific role, citing overcrowding and speedy trial under Article 21, subject to safety and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions preventing tampering, ensuring attendance, and imposing penalties for absence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177081

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39706 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Teejuram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karuna Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List of fresh cases has been revised.

¶7

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

¶8

Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Teejuram, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2023 under Sections 354A, 376D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sonauli, District-Maharajganj , during pendency of trial.

¶10

There is allegation against the applicant and co-accused, Aman Gaud, of committing the offence of gang rape, sexual molestation and threatening against the victim.

¶11

It appears from the statement of the victim before the doctor that main allegation is made against co-accused, Aman Guad. As per the medical report of the victim, she is aged about 20 years. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is a case of false implication. Co-accused, Aman Guad, has already been enlarged on bail in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35337 of 2023. The applicant is in jail since 25.3.2023 and he has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶13

Having considered the submissions noted above; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being undertrial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 that :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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

(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.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Teejuram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teejuram 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

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Zaheer Ansari Vs State of U.P.