Sudhakar vs. State Of U.P.
AI Summary
A bail application by Sudhakar, accused of abduction and criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 363, 366, and 507, was granted by the Uttar Pradesh High Court. The applicant was accused of assisting the main accused Baijnath in taking away a victim from her paternal home, but the victim's own statement under Section 164 CrPC indicated she left willingly and subsequently married Baijnath. The court granted bail with specific conditions regarding court attendance and cooperation with trial proceedings.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Sudhakar was accused of helping the main accused Baijnath take away a woman from her paternal home without permission. An FIR was registered against both of them under Sections 363, 366, and 507 IPC at Police Station Bansi, Siddharth Nagar District. Sudhakar was arrested on January 5, 2020. However, when the victim was asked to give her statement to the court under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that she left her home of her own free will and was not compelled by anyone. Subsequently, the victim married Baijnath. Sudhakar, who had been in jail for over two months and had no previous criminal history, filed a bail application in the High Court.
Timeline of Events
Sudhakar arrested in connection with FIR No. 2 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 507 IPC at Police Station Bansi, Siddharth Nagar
Woman left her paternal home with Baijnath
Sudhakar remained in jail for over two months
Victim recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC indicating she left willingly
Victim married Baijnath
Bail application filed in High Court
Bail application registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11499 of 2020
Bail application heard and disposed by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Key Factual Findings
The victim went with Baijnath of her own sweet will and was not compelled to leave her paternal home
Source: Recited from Victim's Statement under Section 164 CrPC
The victim and Baijnath have married each other
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Sudhakar has been in jail since January 5, 2020
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Sudhakar has no previous criminal history
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The only allegation against Sudhakar is that he helped Baijnath take away the victim from her paternal home
Source: Recited from FIR and Petitioner Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The learned counsel for the applicant Sudhakar submitted the following arguments: (1) The only allegation against Sudhakar in the FIR is that he helped the main accused Baijnath take away the victim from her paternal home. (2) According to the victim's own statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she went with Baijnath of her own free will and no one compelled her to leave her paternal home. (3) The victim and Baijnath have now married each other. (4) The allegations made in the FIR are false. (5) Sudhakar has been in jail since January 5, 2020, which is over two months. (6) Sudhakar has no previous criminal history. (7) If released on bail, Sudhakar will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the trial.
Respondent's Arguments
The learned AGA (Additional Government Advocate) opposed the prayer for bail but did not contradict the facts presented by the applicant's counsel. The State's opposition was limited and did not provide substantive counter-arguments to the applicant's contentions regarding the victim's willingness or the false nature of the allegations.
Court's Reasoning
The court, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, and after perusing the record, considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that: (1) The victim's own statement under Section 164 CrPC indicates she went with Baijnath willingly and was not compelled. (2) The victim and Baijnath have subsequently married. (3) The applicant has been in custody since January 5, 2020. (4) The applicant has no previous criminal history. (5) The applicant is willing to cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found these circumstances sufficient to grant bail. The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the applicant's presence during trial and to prevent misuse of bail liberty.
- Emphasis on Victim's Agency - The court gave significant weight to the victim's own statement indicating her willingness
- Presumption of Innocence - The court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits, respecting the presumption of innocence
- Balancing Liberty and Trial Efficiency - The court balanced the accused's right to bail with the need to ensure trial cooperation through stringent conditions
- Proportionality - The court considered the length of custody (over two months) in deciding to grant bail
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Applicant shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when evidence dates are fixed and witnesses are present
- 2.Applicant shall remain present before trial court on each fixed date, either personally or through counsel
- 3.In case of absence without sufficient cause, trial court may proceed under Section 229-A IPC
- 4.If bail is misused and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued, trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
- 5.Applicant shall remain present in person on dates fixed for opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC
- 6.Default of above conditions may be treated as abuse of bail liberty
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
This is a single judge order from the Uttar Pradesh High Court dealing with bail in an abduction case. While it does not establish binding precedent outside the jurisdiction, it provides persuasive authority on the principles of granting bail when the alleged victim's own statement contradicts the abduction charge. The order is significant for practitioners dealing with similar cases in the High Court and lower courts within UP and potentially other jurisdictions.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh
Listed On:
17 Mar 2020
Order Text
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11499 of 2020
Applicant :- Sudhakar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
The accused-applicant is involved in F.I.R. No.2 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 507 IPC, P.S. Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the impugned FIR, the only allegation against the present applicant is to help the main accused Baijnath to take away the victim from her paternal home. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she went with Baijnath of her own sweet will and no one has compelled her to leave her paternal home. Learned counsel has also submitted that now the victim and Baijnath had married. The allegation made in the impugned FIR is false. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2020. There is no previous criminal history of the present applicant and if the applicant be released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but not contradicted the aforesaid facts.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on merits, let the applicant Sudhakar be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
-
- The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.
-
- 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.
-
- In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
-
- 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.3.2020 Nishant
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order