Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2024BAIL/11693/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 91 of the BNSS 2023. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, considered the delay in FIR, alleged witness relations, and medical report findings, and granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to filing undertaking and cooperating with trial proceedings.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73962

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11693 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Abhinav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Shanker Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2024, in Case Crime No.0277/2024, under Sections 64(2)(K), 333, 127 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Kachchauna, District - Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case, as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Attention of the court has been drawn towards the F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been mentioned as 20.07.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.07.2024, without explaining the delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant of the case is the real aunt of the present applicant but she did not disclose her relation with the applicant. Even while recording her statement before the police also she did not disclose her relation with the present applicant. The victim while recording her statement under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has disclosed her relation with the applicant and has leveled allegation of rape. Thereafter, the medication examination was conducted, which does not corroborate the allegation of the F.I.R., inasmuch as, the medication examination report says that 'hymen is not present and on the basis of external and internal examination no definite opinion can be given about the sexual assault'.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per prosecution story, the applicant has allegedly committed the offence on 20.07.2024 between 9.30 to 11.30 hours, whereas the Annexure No.8, which is the paper showing that applicant was present in a Center where the essential foodgrains are provided to the eligible persons and the date of the aforesaid

¶10

paper is 20th July, 2024 and as per biomatric information the applicant received the food grain at 10:59:26 A.M. Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid biomatric proof may not be concocted, therefore, it is very much clear that the present applicant was present at that Center on 20.07.2024, at about 10:59:26 A.M. Shri Ramakar Shukla has submitted that there is some dispute between the parents of the prosecutrix and the applicant regarding the boundary (Med) of the field (Khet) and having ill intention in her mind, the informant implicated the present applicant in the aforesaid case falsely, therefore, she did not disclose her relation with the applicant. Shri Shuka has also submitted that present applicant is having criminal history of one case, i.e. Case Crime No. 0234/2020 under Section 504 I.P.C. in which a fine of Rs.300/- was imposed by the learned court concerned. Besides the aforesaid case, present applicant has no other criminal history.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the prosecution case from the F.I.R. to recording of statement of the prosecutrix is intact, though there is some delay which might be caused on account of social shame, therefore, the present application for bail may be rejected.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, considering the fact about the presence of the applicant at the spot at the time of incident and also considering the medical examination report and the prior dispute regarding landed property and the fact that present applicant remained in judicial custody till completion of the investigation, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant (Anuj) 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 :-

¶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, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(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 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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.

¶20

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 ML/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj 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

Shanti Devi @ Rajkumari @ Rajkumari Vs State of Up through Prin. Secy., Home Govt of Up Lucknow

Nishu Tomar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Sachin Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others