Sanoj Rajput v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022…
Judgment
Heard Sri Prayogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the informant, as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376, 342 I.P.C. and 5 ठ/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way from Etah to Dadri and had not raised any alarm, whatsoever. Although, she has levelled the allegations of rape against the applicant but they do not stand fortified by any medical evidence.
Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.2.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sanoj Rajput, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 342, 363, 376; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 164, 313; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 20 Mar 2025. The bench was KRISHAN PAHAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.