Allowed

Prakash Rathore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2024BAIL/4718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in FIR alleging trespass and sexual offences against complainant's daughters. Court noted absence of medical support and criminal history, and released the applicant on bail with conditions, without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions on trial attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34394

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4718 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prakash Rathore Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Mani Sharma,Mohammad Sabir

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent, who also informs that vide letter dated 22.03.2024, notice has been served on the complainant.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.700/2023, under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 294, 354A, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ganga Dhat, District Unnao.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is an animosity between the family of the applicant and the complainant.

¶10

It is further submitted that it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶11

It is urged that as per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 10.11.2023, the applicant along with the coaccused is said to have entered into the house of the complainant and misbehaved with the daughters of the complainant.

¶12

It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the applicant do not constitute an offence under Section 376D IPC.

¶13

It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record by virtue of which it can be said that the allegations have been supported by the medical evidence, a copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure No.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is in jail since 19.02.2024 and as such the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary

¶15

available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of one case of similar nature wherein he has been enlarged on bail and the charge-sheet has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances where the statement of the victim supports the prosecution case and the statement of eye-witness, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Prakash Rathore involved in FIR/Case Crime No.700/2023, under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 294, 354A, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ganga Dhat, District Unnao be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶23

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.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prakash Rathore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rathore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow 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

Ram Pratap @ Badakku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shailendra Pratap Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Radhey Lohar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prakash Rathore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others