Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023BAIL/46250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant, who had undergone over three months of incarceration. The court held that since the charge sheet was submitted and no circumstances necessitating custodial arrest emerged from the record, the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct imposed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209899

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46250 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Sharan Goswami

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. I.S. Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Ram Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Om Sharan Goswami, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pradeep, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 648 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District-Bulandshahar during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that an FIR dated 27.07.2023 was lodged by first informant/prosecutrix-Yashu Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 648 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District-Bulandshahar. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely - Pradeep (applicant herein), (2) Brother of Pradeep and (3) Friend of Pradeep have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant alone on 14.09.2023 whereas investigation in respect of other co-accused is said to be pending yet the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is major. With reference to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. which are on record at pages 26 and 34 of the paper book, it is urged that the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party. The prosecutrix had herself accompanied the applicant to various places including Rajsthan and Ghaziabad. It is then contended that no obscene material was recovered by the Investigating Officer.

¶11

Resultantly, no charge sheet has been submitted against applicant under Section 67A of the I.T. Act. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the statement of the prosecutrix referred to above insofar as they allege that applicant snapped obscene photographs of the prosecutrix are wholly incorrect and unworthy of reliance.

¶12

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 31.07.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 3 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits 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 the trial.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 22 years whose modesty has been dislodged by applicant. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶14

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that as per the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party, the prosecutrix had herself accompanied the applicant to various places including Rajsthan and Ghaziabad, no obscene material was recovered by the Investigating Officer, resultantly, no charge sheet has been submitted against applicant under Section 67A I.T. Act, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could

¶15

not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the 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. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant-Pradeep, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL

¶23

WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶24

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Vinay

¶26

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

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Shyamu Sharma @ Shyamu @ Kalla Vs State of U.P.

Adarsh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajveer Singh Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Gov of Up at Lucknow

Rakhi Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashuthosh Maurya @ Shanauj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others