Allowed

Hariram v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/5647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Hariram, who was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC. The court granted bail considering the acquittal of main accused persons and discrepancies in the prosecutrix's testimonial statements.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court, not leave India, and abide terms of bail.

Hariram Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39735

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5647 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hariram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwash Saraswat, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 01.05.2024 in Case Crime No.103 of 1996, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Gonda.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. He has submitted that this is a case of 1996 wherein the present applicant has been implicated on the allegation that he alongwith one Pappu has committed the offence in question with the prosecutrix. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.6 of the bail application, which is a judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.881 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Saberey and another, acquitting all the accused persons as during the course of trial, the fact emerged that the incident in question had not taken place. The prosecutrix recorded her evidence before the learned Trial Court saying that she had not recorded her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as has been indicated in those statements. She has also deposed that the police was having enmity with the accused persons, therefore, those statements have been prepared. In the acquittal order, it is clear that the prosecution could not establish his case beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the accused persons have been acquitted. Learned counsel has submitted that when the main accused Pappu and another accused Saberey have been acquitted, then allegation against the present applicant may not be established, though the trial of the present applicant has been separated.

¶9

Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of

¶10

any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that main accused Pappu and another accused Saberey have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 (supra); the prosecutrix recorded her evidence before the learned Trial Court saying that she had not recorded her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as has been indicated in those statements and she has also deposed that the police was having enmity with the accused persons, therefore, those statements have been prepared; the applicant is having no prior criminal history and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Hariram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 RBS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hariram v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munejar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.U.P.

Dharmendra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sani Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Jai Karan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Vasudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.