Allowed

Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/12234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a case cognizable under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(3), POCSO Act Sections 3, 4, and SC/ST Act Sections 3(2)(5a), 3(2)(5), the court granted bail. The release was conditioned upon the applicant ensuring the presence of witnesses, appearing at all trial hearings, and not leaving India without permission. The court noted the prosecutrix denied marriage and consent to t

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2024 via a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding presence in court and cooperation.

Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83064

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12234 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Khan,Syed Anzar Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This Court has passed order dated 23.11.2024, which reads as under:-

¶8

"1. Heard Shri Mohd. Irfan Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

2. Learned A.G.A. informs the Court that notice has been served upon the wife of the complainant but no one has appeared.

¶10

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2024 in Case Crime No.0257/2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) of I.P.C. and Section 3, 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (5a), 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Shahabad, District - Hardoi.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has got married with the prosecutrix but the complainant, who is the father of the prosecutrix, is not permitting to the prosecutrix to live with the applicant or his family. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly stated that the prosecurix has not attained the marriageable age but as per the report given by the Doctor she is 17 years of age. Learned counsel for the applicant has shown Annexure No.6, which are the photographs of the present applicant with the prosecutrix showing that she has married the applicant.

¶12

5. So as to verify the aforesaid fact, presence of the prosecutrix along with the complainant would be required.

¶13

6. List on 4th December, 2024.

¶14

7. On that date, the S.H.O., Police Station - Shahabad, District - Hardoi shall ensure presence of the prosecutrix along with the complainant.

¶15

8. Learned A.G.A. shall intimate this order to S.H.O., Police Station Shahabad, District Hardoi for compliance."

¶16

In compliance of the aforesaid order, prosecutrix "X" and her father are present in person.

¶17

Sri Vipin Chandra, Sub Inspector and Ms. Joyti Thakur, Female Constable, Police Station – Shahabad, District – Hardoi

¶18

have ensured the presence of the prosecutrix.

¶19

The prosecutrix has stated that she is not willing to live with the present applicant and the act of establishing physical relation was against her will. She denied the marriage with the applicant

¶20

Father of the prosecutrix, who is informant, has also stated that if his daughter is not agree to live with the applicant and she is denying for the marriage, then he has nothing to say.

¶21

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 drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein no allegation against the present applicant regarding rape has been levelled, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the present applicant has established physical relation without her consent but she has also stated that she is willing to live with the present applicant. However, the aforesaid fact has been denied today. Certain coloured photographs have been enclosed with the bail application showing the relation of the present applicant with the prosecutrix. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of 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.

¶22

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 and has submitted that charge sheet has been filed.

¶23

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; in the impugned FIR and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no allegation of rape against the present applicant has been levelled, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the present applicant has established physical relation without her consent but she has also stated that she is willing to live with the present applicant; certain coloured photographs enclosed with the bail application shows relation of the present applicant with the prosecutrix; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it

¶24

appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶25

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let applicant- Jitendra Pal alias Jeetu be released on bail in Case Crime No.257 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) of I.P.C., Sections 3, 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3 (2) (5a), 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Shahbad, District - Hardoi 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:-

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶33

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 /RBS/-

¶34

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

Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok @ Pujari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy, Home Dept. Lko

Raj Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamran Warsi vs Vice Chancellor Lko University Lko and Another

Ramshankar Singh @ Sohail Singh vs Union of India Thru. Asst. Director