Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018BAIL/117/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the applicant Saleem in a case involving kidnapping and abduction of a minor and offences under POCSO. The court noted false implication claims and lack of independent witnesses while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence or witness and appear in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 117 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against Tasreef Khan, Yusuf Khan Seema, Zahir Khan and Haseena alleging that they kidnapped the daughter of the complainant Shakuruddin Khan aged about 17 years and compelled her for marriage; during investigation chargesheet was submitted against applicant Saleem (Jeeju) of the prosecutrix.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant; in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she went with Saleem and she also admitted that the applicant has done nothing against her will; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is in jail since 14.11.2017 (more than three months) having no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Saleem involved in the Case Crime No. 506 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hafizganj, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶15

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravendra @ Pinta Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Saeeda @ Saeed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Robin Vs State of U.P.