In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24213 of 2018, the court granted bail to Yusuf, charged under IPC 354K and POCSO sections, requiring a personal bond and two sureties. The order mandated the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months.
Releasing the applicant on bail under a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24213 of 2018
Applicant :- Yusuf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Further submission is that applicant has not committed the alleged offence and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. Further submission is that there is contradiction in the statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.PC. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 22.5.2018, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative
theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Yusuf , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2018, under Sections 354K I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67-B Information Technology (Amendment) Act, P.S. Chandi Nagar, district-Baghpat on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will
not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004 , trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of six month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who was in jail since 22.5.2018 and has no criminal history.
Whether the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶10
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and othersReferred¶15
AIR 2018 SC 2004 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Yusuf
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
