Allowed

Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2023BAIL/43907/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench allowed bail to Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi charged with gang rape and sexual assault. Court cited overcrowding and right to speedy trial without adjudicating merits. Ordered release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including non-tampering, regular attendance, and undertaking regarding adjournments.

Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:199195

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43907 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Prasad,Anil Kumar,Savan Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has informed that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶9

There are allegations against the applicant of committing the offences of gang rape of a minor girl after her unlawful confinement and also penetrative sexual assault.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of the applicant. Initially, FIR was lodged only under Sections 354-A, 341 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. In the first statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not made any allegation of commission of offence of rape against the applicant and co-accused, however she has later implicated him. It is only alleged that they tried to commit the alleged offence.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant also submits that allegation under Section 376-DA IPC have falsely been made against the applicant. The victim was although minor but she refused her internal medical examination before the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 16.08.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

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

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

¶14

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 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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi, involved in Case Crime No. 117 of 2023, under Sections- 376-DA, 341 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sadat, DistrictGhazipur, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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

¶21

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 ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Rohit

¶25

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

Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangharsh Kumar @ Sipahi 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

Omendra Alias Yogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish Akhlak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaswant Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mustakeem Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Mohrat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others