Allowed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024/1733/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court at Lucknow enlarged the applicant on bail, finding it a fit case due to FIR delay, lack of medical corroboration, and absence of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions against tampering, pressurizing witnesses, and securing personal attendance.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16885

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1733 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶9

It is alleged in the FIR that daughter of the informant is student of class 9th aged about 17 years. While she was going on 03.02.2023 at about 8 am to give examination, she did not reach at the school. A phone call was received from the school that she did not come to school and while the informant was searching her in the evening, she returned at home. She told that Ranjeet (applicant) along with his two henchmen abducted her and on the pointing out of a weapon, she has been raped in the sugar cane field.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR has been lodged after a delay of 8 months. The victim as per the ossification test is major 18 to 19 years of age. Perusal of the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that when a specific question was put to her that whether she suffered any injury while the rape was being committed, she replied that she has not suffered any injury. This shows that she was a consenting party. Statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not inspire confidence. There is no corroborative material in support of the prosecution case. The applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; lack of corroborative medical evidence, coupled with the fact that although the victim is alleged to have been dragged and raped in the sugar cane field, however, as per her own statement she has not suffered any injury; the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2023 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Ranjeet, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 435/2023, under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khairabad, District - Sitapur, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶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 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

(vi) 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Ramprasad Alias Balla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajwati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others