Allowed

Gajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023BAIL/57353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC allowed bail for applicant charged with outraging modesty and gang rape, citing jail overcrowding and Article 21. Court imposed strict conditions, including fixed court presence and prohibition on adjournments, directing trial conclusion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions like court presence and no adjournment without cause.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57353 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saurabh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

There is allegation of commission of offence of outraging the modesty and gang rape of the informant after entering into her house.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C she has alleged the offence of catching hold against the applicant. The main role of committing rape has been assigned to co-accused, Sanjay. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in jail since 07.11.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶9

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 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 Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and 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 and 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Gajendra, involved in Case Crime No.121 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354, 376-D, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Hasayan, District- Hathras 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.

¶11

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

¶12

(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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Dhanpal Vs State of U.P.

Haripal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others