Allowed

Chhotu Rathaur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024/6308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court on 01.07.2024 granted bail to Chhotu Rathaur and two others accused under Section 376-D IPC and POCSO Act, holding that they are not at risk of fleeing justice. The court imposed standard conditions ensuring presence in court and warned of consequences for abuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond with two reliable sureties each subject to specified conditions of attendance and conduct.

Chhotu Rathaur and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44501

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6308 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotu Rathaur And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salman,Ana Fatma,Mukhtar Ahamad

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

By means of the instant bail application, the applicants seek bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.0700/2023, under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 294, 354-A, 376-D IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is an animosity between the family of the applicants and the complainant.

¶11

It is further submitted that it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the applicants have been falsely implicated.

¶12

It is urged that as per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 10.11.2023, the applicants along with the coaccused is said to have entered into the house of the complainant and misbehaved with the daughters of the complainant.

¶13

It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the applicants does not constitute an offence under Section 376-D IPC.

¶14

It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record by virtue of which it can be said that the allegations have been supported by the medical evidence, a copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure No.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants are in jail since 08.05.2024 and they have no other criminal history and as such they may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

It is submitted that the co-accused namely Prakash Rathore has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4718 of 2024, a copy of the said bail order has been placed on record as Annexure No.11.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances where the statement of the victim supports the prosecution case and the statement of eye-witness, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

¶17

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 applicants, 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 applicants are at the risk of fleeing justice or that they 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 applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Let the applicants Chhotu Rathaur, Bheem Rathaur and Sonu Rathaur involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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

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

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear

¶23

before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 1.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhotu Rathaur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Rathaur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. 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

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Taihroonnisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Guru Prasad and Anr. vs Mr Liyaquat Ali (D.J.) Sole Arbitrator Lucknow

Dilwant Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Tamseel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.