Allowed

Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/7092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed for abduction and induction of a minor beyond limits. The applicant produced medical versions and lack of criminal antecedents. He was ordered to be released on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and ensuring presence before the trial court.

Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45014

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7092 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Prabhu Sharan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegation against the applicant. She of her own accord and free will went away with the applicant. The relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual. No ofence under Section 363 and 366 IPC is made out.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.03.2024 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

On due consideration to the statements of the victim; coupled with the fact that 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.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant, Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 64/2024, under Sections 363/366 IPC, Police Station - Auras, District - Unnao, 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 R.C.

¶21

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

Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Rizwan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sonu Kumar Mehto Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jitendra Barua and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Ashiq vs Union of India Thru. Inspector Director of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.

Ashish Soni @ Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.