Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1003 (ALL)

Rahul Agrahari v. State of U. P.

2020-07-08

J.J.MUNIR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid-19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices the fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain condition in this regard. 2. This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Rahul Agrahari, in connection with Case Crime No. 24 of 2020, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station -Bara, District -Prayagraj. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the stand of the prosecutrix in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically come up with the allegation that she was never ravished by the applicant. Rather it was at the instance of her family that a false case was lodged against him. He submits that going by the said statement, no case against the applicant is made out. It is pointed out that applicant is above 16 years of age, if not a major. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 09.02.2020. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., saying that she was never ravished by the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the instance of her family, the fact that the applicant is in jail since 09.02.2020, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail. 7. The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed. 8. 7. The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed. 8. Let the applicant, Rahul Agrahari, involved in Case Crime No. 24 of 2020, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station -Bara, District -Prayagraj, be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. (v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self-attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 9. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.