Allowed

Mannu @ Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2018BAIL/16040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Mannu, under the principle of parity with a co-accused who was already released. The applicant faced charges under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act. Strict conditions were imposed regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of appearance and no abuse of liberty.

Mannu @ Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16040 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mannu @ Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Mabood Khan 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. 170 of 2018, under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Deepu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 24.04.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15017 of 2018. He further submitted that the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accusedDeepu. He lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 19.02.2018 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶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 on the ground of parity.

¶10

In view of the above, let the applicant- Mannu @ Manoj Kumar 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. 170 of 2018, under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra 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

¶12

OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(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 229A 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 :- 3.5.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Mannu @ Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannu @ Manoj Kumar 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

Shyam Sunder Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishore Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Rais Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.