Allowed

Sonu Alias Mumtaz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018BAIL/14223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and sections 5/6 POCSO Act, the court released the applicant on bail during trial, noting the belated FIR and potential age discrepancy of the complainant, subject to strict conditions regarding absence, conduct, and trial speed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14223 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Alias Mumtaz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Ram Dubey,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 1033 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was registered after two days of the incident. Before the doctor she has stated that she went with the applicant from Basti to Ghaziabad and spent considerable time with him. As per radiological report her age comes around 16 years by giving two years margin she is almost major. She has taken a fluid stand in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, which does not generate any confidence and appears to be a consenting party. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 17.12.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Sonu Alias Mumtaz 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 in case crime no. 1033 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-

¶13

A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM 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 APPLICANTS.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant/applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Sonu Alias Mumtaz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Mumtaz 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shambhoo Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Surajbhan Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rani Vs State of U.P.