Allowed

Tara Kant Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018BAIL/2738/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant in Section 354-D IPC and POCSO Act case. Applicant detained over a year, no criminal history. Released on bond and sureties with standard conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and future offenses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and committing similar offenses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2738 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tara Kant Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J .

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against Tara Kant Sharma alleging that on 11.06.2017, he assaulted the prosecutrix, 17 years of age with intent to outrage her modesty.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to dispute raised between wife and husband-applicant. One shop was sold by the applicant for Rs.25,00,000/- out of which the applicant used Rs.4,00,000/for repairing of his house and remaining Rs.21,00,000/- was delivered to his wife and his wife and brother-in-law used the money, thereafter he moved one application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix and her mother on 29.03.2016 and in counterblast this FIR was lodged on 12.6.2017. Prosecutrix is living with her mother and on advice of her mother she lodged this false FIR against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 13.06.2017 (more than one year one month) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. There is no possibility to get the case decided in near future.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Tara Kant Sharma, involved in Case Crime No. 575 of 2017, under Section 354-D IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions;

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 19.7.2018 SKD

Tara Kant Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Kant Sharma 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

Sageer Vs State of U.P.

Syed Asim Miyan Vs Smt. Reshma Bi and Others

Ritika Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neeraj @ Neetu Vs State of U.P.

Meharaban Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.