Allowed

Vinod Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023BAIL/51773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Vinod Rajbhar in a case alleging abduction, rape, and offences under the POCSO Act. The court relied on overcrowding, one-sided investigation, and the right to speedy trial, citing a recent Supreme Court precedent, to allow the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding witness interference and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237013

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51773 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Nath Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anjali Jaiswal,Dhirendra Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List of fresh cases revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice has been served upon the informant but no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinod Rajbhar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2023, under Sections 363,366,376(3) IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Khesraha, DistrictSiddharth Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There are allegations against applicant of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offence of rape,besides offence under section 3/4 POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per ossification test report of the victim she is aged about 17 years. Given margin of two years on higher side, she can be considered to be major.From the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.she has neither made allegation of abduction nor rape against the applicant. She is clearly a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 24.6.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶10

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

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding

¶12

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 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

¶19

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 :- 14.12.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

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

Vinod Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Rajbhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kahkasa Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Manish Bind Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Kandhai Lal Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.