Allowed

Ranjit Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024BAIL/1699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged underIPC and POCSO with rape allegations. The court noted contradictory victim statements, lack of medical corroboration, and no prior criminal history as grounds for bail while imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Ranjit Chauhan vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16163

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1699 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjit Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Krishna Shukla,Avaneesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that daughter of the informant who is a student of Class-IX and is suffering from mental ailment for the last two months and is undergoing treatment went out from home at about 7.30p.m. on 7.7.2023, however, she did not return till late evening. Thus, a missing report was registered.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under section 161 CrPC has made allegation of rape against the applicant. While giving statement under section 164 CrPC, she has named six persons by making improvement. The statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC are contradictory and do not inspire confidence. There is no corroborative medical report or any other corroborative material to support the prosecution case. The radiological age of the victim of occurrence has been found to be 17 years. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 12.9.2023.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

4. 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

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history,varied statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, lack of corroborative evidence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

6. Let the applicant Ranjit Chauhan, involved in Case Crime No.268 of 2023 under sections 363, 366A, 376(D)(A), 323 I.P.C., 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, P.S.Patti, district Pratapgarh, 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 kkb/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjit Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Manish Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Vineet Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Udai Raj Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.