Allowed

Pratipal Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/44931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant, who was under trial for alleged rape and other offences, relying on Apex Court precedents regarding relations under false promise of marriage and considerations of trial speed and jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209106

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44931 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pratipal Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Arvind Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pratipal Rajpoot, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)n, 323,504,506,427 IPC Police Station Jariya, District- Hamirpur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of repeated rape of a girl , beating and criminal intimidation.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim is major aged about 22 years. She has admitted her affair with applicant and only after applicant refused to marry the victim she has lodged the First Information Report.The applicant is in jail since 27.3.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

The Apex Court in the cases of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 182, Promod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra and others, MANU/SC/1142/2019, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharastra and others, MANU/SC/1518/2018, Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2023, Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 Lawsuit(SC)973 has held that entering into physical relationship on false promise of marriage

¶11

does not amounts to commission of offence of rape.

¶12

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 in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the 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

¶13

Let the applicant 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.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the

¶19

effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 1.11.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pratipal Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratipal Rajpoot 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anushka Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Arbaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others