Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023BAIL/57481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a case involving alleged sexual offences under IPC and POCSO. Relying on precedents regarding marriage pretexts, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57481 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 12.12.2022.

¶7

Heard Shri Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.337 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the victim/informant for the last five years and later on is stated to have refused to marry her. In the night of 12.07.2022 at about 1:00 AM, the applicant is stated to have barged into her house and had tried to get intimate her. The victim is stated to have raised alarm, as such her family members are stated to have woken up and the applicant is stated to have threatened them and left the place.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR with respect to the incident dated 12.07.2022 is delayed by about three weeks and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party and as per her own statement, her age is 19 years. Learned counsel has further placed much reliance on her school certificate, which has been filed as annexure no.10 to the bail application, whereby her age was found to be 18 years 11 months. Learned counsel has further stated that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., but later on the Investigating Officer has added the provisions of POCSO Act to it on the ground that the applicant was having

¶11

relationship with the informant/victim for the last five years. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting married cannot be termed as rape.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the facts narrated in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Raju involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶21

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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.3.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Rahul @ Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naraian Vs State of U.P.