Allowed

Rohit Mandal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024/541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The court noted the settlement between the victim's parents and the lack of apprehension regarding flight or tampering, ordering release on personal bond with sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in like amount subject to four specific conditions regarding court appearance and no adjournment.

Rohit Mandal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31761

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 541 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Mandal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA who has filed his counter-afÏdavit which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder-afÏdavit against the said counter-afÏdavit.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.0454 of 2023, under Sections 363 366 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali, District Unnao.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and the victim was in a relationship. They have married. This relationship and the marriage did not go well with the parents of the victim. It is in this view that the said FIR has been lodged. It is further pointed out that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that her parents did not treat her well. For the said reason, she was sent to Delhi to her aunt (Mausi). On the insistence of the aunt the applicant started working in a footwear store where she met the present applicant and she was in relationship. It is further stated that she had married the applicant with her own free will and the allegations made in the FIR are not correct.

¶10

It has further been pointed out that the applicant has been in jail since 12.12.2023 even though the parents of the victim entered into a settlement in such circumstances, the applicant is

¶11

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not quite spoken the version as made out in the FIR and the applicant is otherwise does not have any criminal history and has been in jail since 12.12.2023.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Rohit Mandal involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0454 of 2023, under Sections 363 366 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali, District Unnao be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶16

(i) 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

(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,

¶18

without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(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, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 ank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Mandal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Mandal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Shyam Sunder Singh Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Radhe Raman Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rohit Mandal vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ravindra Kumar Singh vs Addl. Commissioner, Aydhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Shyam Babu vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko.