Allowed

Anil Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023BAIL/45978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Anil Prajapati, the applicant, in Case Crime No. 269 of 2023 involving allegations of abduction, gang rape, and offences under POCSO Act. The court release him on a personal bond and two sureties, imposing specific conditions regarding court appearance and non-tampering with witnesses, citing fundamental rights to speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

Anil Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227969

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45978 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Sri S.B. Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of informant, is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for informant prays for an adjournment after the bail application has been heard. His prayer for adjournment is declined.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the 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, Anil Prajapati , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376DA, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶10

There are allegations against the applicant of abduction of a minor girl, commission of offences of gang rape, conspiracy, criminal intimidation and offence under Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim had consenting relationship with co-accused, Rap Pratap, and she has admitted entering into physical relationship with him. He has submitted that it is a case of false implication. The applicant is husband of landlady of victim. Since his wife has asked the father of the victim to vacate her house, applicant has been falsely implicated in this case through the victim. At the time of alleged offencehis wife was present in the same house. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 29.06.2023.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on

¶13

bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in 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. & 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Abhishek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Prajapati 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

Maharani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ritesh Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Akash Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram Vs State of U.P.