Allowed

Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023BAIL/58313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding rape and POCSO charges, the Allahabad High Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, releasing him on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58313 of 2022 Applicant :- Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶2

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Dayal Tiwari,Ranjay Kumar,Sr. Advocate,Vaibhav Goswami

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bal Krishna Rai,Tanisha Jahangir Monir

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri M.D.Singh "Shekhar" learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ranjay Kumar learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.10.2022, the accused-applicant entered into the house of the informant and misbehaved with her daughter and outraged her modesty. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 11.10.2022 whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 14.11.2022 and that there is no plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. He further submits that only to cause harm and harassment to the applicant the instant prosecution has been launched. Apart from the aforesaid F.I.R., the mother of the victim had also filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant levlling allegations under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. in which, police report was submitted stating therein that a F.I.R. has already been registered against the applicant and so far as the allegation levelled under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. appears to be false. He further submit that the applicant is a Teacher in Intermediate College and was on duty on the day of incident and therefore the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has also argued that no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully

¶7

make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.08.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit, involved in Case Crime No.410 of 2022 under Sections 254 (A), 376, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

I. 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 shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

IV. 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 sufficient 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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 23.3.2023 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Chaubey @ Babloo Pandit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kailash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu @ Babblu Maurya Vs State of U.P.