Allowed

Rohitas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023BAIL/5152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the bail application of Rohitas facing charges under IPC and POCSO Act. The court found no material to suggest flight risk, intimidation of witnesses, or tampering with evidence. Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions.

Rohitas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197641

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5152 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohitas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishvendra Singh,Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the applicant has taken away the minor daughter of the informant (aged about 3 years). Upon reaching home, she found that the applicant is misbehaving with the minor daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the medical examination no injury has been found on the body of the victim. Statement of the mother of the victim has been recorded where she has stated that when she reached the home the applicant was in half cloths and misbehaving with her minor daughter, however, there is no detail on account of the assault made by the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

4.Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has misbehaved with the victim, however, he does not dispute the fact that no injury was found on the body of the victim.

¶10

4-A. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶11

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the

¶12

applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶13

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶14

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶15

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶17

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶18

10A. In the present case, it is to be seen that no external or internal injury has been found on the body of the victim at the time of medical examination. In the statement of mother of the victim, no detail account of the misbehaviour extended by the applicant has been stated. The victim is three years old. There is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶20

Let the applicant Rohitas involved in Case Crime No. 590 of 2022, under Sections 354, 354B, 342, 323 IPC & Section 9M/10

¶21

POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶25

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

v. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶29

viii. Considering the allegations and nature of offence made in the FIR, it is hereby directed that the trial court shall proceed to conclude the trial court proceedings, expeditiously, preferably within 1 year from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 S.Prakash

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohitas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitas 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

Kanhaiya @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Janvesh Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Kawarpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Saxena Vs State of U.P.