Allowed

Teajo @ Teajpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023BAIL/43810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad allowed the bail application of an applicant charged with rape and other offences. The court accepted the analysis that the unexplained delay in FIR filing and absence of convincing evidence indicated false implication. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207769

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43810 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Teajo @ Teajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Teajo @ Teajpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 242 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chata, District Mathura.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions for which time was granted to him vide order dated 16.10.2023.

¶10

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 01.08.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant alleging therein that on 10.07.2023 at about 12:00 am she was sleeping in the house. Her husband was sleeping in the other room on which the applicant from the roof came in her room and there was scuffle between her after which the applicant gagged her mouth and threatened her of murdering her husband and on the threat he committed rape upon her. She then raised a shout on which her husband woke up and came there and then both tried to apprehend the applicant on which he assaulted them and ran away.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a married woman. It is argued that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 20 days. It is further argued that there was some dispute going on

¶12

between the applicant and the husband of the first informant with regards to money for which police of Police Station Chat, District Mathura had sent a challan under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2023. It is argued that even till that date there was no disclosure of any such incident of rape being committing on the informant. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged afterthought just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 05.08.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 20 days. In between the police had drawn proceedings under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. against the applicant and the husband of the informant and till that date there was no disclosure of any such incident of rape.

¶15

Looking to 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.

¶16

Let the applicant Teajo @ Teajpal , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-

¶17

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶27

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Teajo @ Teajpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teajo @ Teajpal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aladeen Ahmad Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P.

Veerpal Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow