Allowed

Saddam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018BAIL/28631/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh J. dismissed controversy regarding bail conditions for Saddam in a quashing application related to offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court granted bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing Dataram Singh and Alakh Alok Sroivastava guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond with two sureties imposing specific conditions including cooperation and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28631 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shahabuddin

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri ,Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against four persons including the applicant alleging that they had earlier molested his younger sister for which complaint was made to the applicant, but the applicant did not mend his ways rather hurled abuses upon the complainant. Thereafter the applicant alongwith his associates, who were armed with lathi, tabal, sword and country made pistol entered into the house of the applicant and assaulted the complainant and his brother causing injuries to them.

¶7

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 ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused and no specific role is attributed to the applicant. The report is unduly delayed for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution.Prior to the present incident the applicant had also lodged report against some of the relatives of the complainant as stated in paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application due to which the complainant has hatched the conspiracy to implicate the applicant in this case in order to take revenge from him.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 applicants is languishing in jail since 18.6.2018. It is pointed out that the the applicant has four criminal history which has been explained properly in paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶8

The Court has perused the criminal history of the applicant and the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has levelled serious allegation of harassment being meted out to her by the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the victim has apprehension that if the applicant is released from the jail she will be subjected to harassment.

¶11

It is made clear that if any kind of atrocities is committed by the applicant against the victim or her family members, the court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant granted by this Court.

¶12

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Saddam involved in Case Crime No. 580 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452, 323,504, 506 I.P.C & Sec. 7/8 POCSO ACT, P.S. Majhola, District- Moradabad 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:

¶14

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶19

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 applicants to prison.

¶20

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial of the applicant in the present case as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order,, if there is no legal impediment. keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Sroivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018(SC) 2004.

¶21

Order Date: 1.10.2018

¶22

Saddam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogender Vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Kumar @ Dabboo Vs State of U.P.

Immamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Dinanath Vs State of U.P.

Diwari Lal Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Singh Vs State of U.P.