Allowed

Vaseer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2018BAIL/16622/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application involving rape and POCSO charges, the single judge observed that the FIR appears retaliatory. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court held it was a fit case for bail and released the applicant on bond with strict conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear at trial dates, specifically for evidence, charge framing, and Section 313 statement.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16622 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vaseer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dadhi Bal Yadav 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. 124 of 2017, under Sections 376, 354B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present FIR was lodged by Shahida Khatoon just as a retaliatory measure to equate the equation in which her sister Shahina Khatoon's son in law Lukumddin who is languishing in jail in connection with case crime no. 57 of 2017 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC dated 08.03.2017, P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria for enticing away the daughter of the informant by Lukumddin who happens to be the son in law of Shahina Khatoon. Shahida Khatoon and Shahina Khatoon are the real sisters in order to mount pressure Shahida Khatoon sacrifice the dignity and honour of her own daughter and lodged a frivolous case against the present applicant under Section 354B and Section 7/8 POCSO Act for the alleged misbehaviour with her nine years old daughter. There is no medical report as the victim has not admitted for any medical examination. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.12.2018 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- Vaseer 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. 124 of 2017, under Sections 376, 354B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria 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 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Abhishek Sri.

Vaseer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaseer 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

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.

Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P.