Allowed

Pooja Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2018BAIL/16617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16617 of 2018, the High Court granted bail to Pooja Devi, who faced charges under IPC and POCSO Act for allegedly facilitating rape of a minor. The court imposed stringent conditions regarding court appearances and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties under specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16617 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pooja Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Kant Dwivedi 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. 670 of 2017, under Sections 342, 344, 376D, 120B, 323 IPC and Section 3/18 POCSO Act, P.S. Nakur, District Saharanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady and the allegation against her is that she has facilitated her brother Mukesh to commit rape upon the minor victim. The case of the co-accused Mukesh is distinguishable from the present applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 29.03.2018 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- Pooja Devi 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. 670 of 2017, under Sections 342, 344, 376D, 120B, 323 IPC and Section 3/18 POCSO Act, P.S. Nakur, District Saharanpur with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF

¶14

BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at 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 :- 4.5.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Pooja Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Devi 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

Mohd. Rais Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Raisa Vs State of U.P.

Vaseer Vs State of U.P.