Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132544

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5323 of 2022

Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan,Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 27.07.2021 by the coordinate Bench of this Court which is not available now.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of rape, voyeurism and threatening after entering into the house of the victim.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. The victim has admitted before the court below that the applicant had committed the alleged offence against her number of times. Whenever the victim was alone in the house he used to enter into the house and commit the alleged offence on the threat that he will make her obscene photographs viral. He has submitted that it is a case of consent. The victim is a married woman. Her husband was residing outside. She entered into voluntary physical relationship with the applicant and thereafter falsely implicated him. No incriminating video or photograph was recovered which may prove the allegation made by the victim against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

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

¶13

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 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.

¶14

Let the applicant, Sanjay, involved in Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sections- 452, 354C, 376, 506 IPC, Police StationUruwa Bazar, District- Gorakhpur, 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.

¶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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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

¶20

liberty of 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

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Rohit

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Bhuiyan Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gangadhar Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar @ Sukumar @ Nanhey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishabh@ Shishu Pal Vs State of U.P.