Allowed

Shahid Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018BAIL/10812/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under IPC and POCSO Act, the court recorded facts showing a delay in FIR registration and conflicting victim statements. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, imposing strict conditions on future appearance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Shahid Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10812 of 2018 Applicant :- Shahid Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kirtikar Pande Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶5

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 233 of 2017, under Section 342, 363, 366, 366A, 376, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Pilice Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶6

Submission made by the counsel that the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the present FIR was registered by the brother of the prosecutrix, though on same day i.e. 25.03.2017 under Section 366 IPC with the allegation that her sister (the victim) went to appearing in the intermediate examination and since then his sister whereabouts is not known. The age of his sister is about 17 years. She was recovered on 12.04.2017, after 17 days of lodging of FIR. He further submitted that in first two 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim she has not made any allegation either kidnapping or rape upon the applicant, but in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was recorded after one year of the alleged recovery of the girl, in the custody of her parents, she has change her stands from her earlier stands taken by her. As per high school certificate her date of birth is 04.07.2001 i.e. on the date of incident her age

¶7

comes to more than 18 years and she is a student of intermediate. She has visited at various places and has spent a quality time with the applicant. She appears to be a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2017, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Shahid Ahmad, involved in case crime no. 233 of 2017, under Section 342, 363, 366, 366-A, 376, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Pilice Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, be released on bail on 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:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶12

(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

¶13

AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) 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. 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 VKG

Shahid Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin @ Patram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Munna Alias Ali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Jagpreet Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P.