Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/44939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sanju, accused in a rape case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The court noted the prosecutrix was a consenting adult, the applicant had clean antecedents, and the police report had already been submitted. Bail was granted on a personal and surety bond with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties upon furnishing a personal undertaking to abide by specific court conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204193

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44939 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Sanju seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2023 under section 376 (2) (n) IPC, Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 6.5.2023 was lodged by first informant/prosecutrix Dimple, which was registered as Case Crime No. 123 of 2023 under section 376 (2) (n) IPC, Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons namely, Harendra, Rooplal, Maya Devi, Bina, Sangeeta, Sanju have been nominated as named accused. It is apposite to mention here that aforesaid F.IR. was lodged subsequent to order passed by concerned Magistrate under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent, applicant has been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number. Prosecutrix is major. She is a willing and consenting party. The applicant has not been charge-sheeted under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶10

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 14.3.2023. As such, he has undergone more than five months of incarceration. Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized. However, upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the

¶11

record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶12

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that prosecutrix is major, prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, applicant has not been charge sheeted under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, clean antecedents, period of incarceration undergone, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Sanju , 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:-

¶16

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶17

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL

¶18

COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶19

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶22

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.10.2023

¶24

Arshad

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Tota Ram @ Tinku and Another Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Suhel Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhlesh Alias Avlesh Vs State of U.P.