Allowed

Sandeep @ Sagar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2018BAIL/17551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding allegations of unnatural sex with a minor, the High Court granted bail despite severe punishment provisions. Citing a lack of physical evidence (no spermatozoa) and procedural delay, the court found prima facie satisfaction of charges but allowed release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17551 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep @ Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Kant Dwivedi,Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

¶6

Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.S.Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged the first information report against the applicant alleging that the accused committed unnatural sex with his minor son aged about 8 years while he was playing with other children outside his house and he was caught red handed by the complainant and other villagers.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and village party-bandi and he has committed no offence. The applicant is servant of the complainant. It is further contended that due to personal enmity with the applicant the complainant has falsely been roped in the present case. The FIR is unduly delayed by 12 hours for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution.The victim was medically examined. From perusal of the pathology report no live or dead spermatozoa was seen on the person of the victim. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2017.The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the

¶11

witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,let the applicant Sandeep @ Sagar involved in Case Crime No. 58 of 2017 under Sections 377 I.P.C. & Sec.5/6 POCSO Act,2012, P.S. Titaro, District-Saharanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 20.8.2018 IA

Sandeep @ Sagar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Sagar 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

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Aditya @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P.

Maiyadeen Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Uady Bhan Sahni Vs State of U.P.