Allowed

Raj Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024BAIL/2230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed by the Allahabad High Court. The court considered the victim's contradictory statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence as factors supporting bail, despite the case being registered for serious offenses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

Raj Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20529

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2230 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Gupta

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi)

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Nath Rai

¶8

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

In the FIR, it is alleged that on 22.12.2023 while the informant went to ease out and her minor daughter aged about 18 years was sleeping inside the home, finding a chance, from the back side of the home, Raj Gupta (applicant) intruded at 10'O clock in the night and started molesting the victim. The complainant came all of a sudden and when she asked him what he is doing here, he threatened the kill. Upon raising alarm by the informant, the neighbors came, however, in the meantime, he ran away. While fleeing away, his slippers and muffler were left there.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is major and is a consenting party. Deliberately radiological examination of the victim has not been conducted by the investigating officer. As per the school record, she is 17 years and 7 months old. While giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made improvement and for the first time, allegation of rape has been leveled. There is contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The statements of the victim do not inspire confidence. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2024 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.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not assign any reason as to why the victim has not been radiologically examined by the investigating officer.

¶14

On due consideration to the contradictory statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; lack of corroborative medical evidence; charge sheet has been filed by the investigating officer, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2024 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Raj Gupta, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 530/2023, under Sections 354/506/450/376 IPC and Section 7/8 and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Wazirganj, District - Gonda, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 R.C.

¶25

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

Raj Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Snehlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Shivam Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Jayaswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.