Court granted bail to Pintu in a POCSO case involving accusedSections 354A, 452, 506 IPC. Bail ordered on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to cooperate with trial and avoid tampering, directing expedited trial within six months.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties (Rs. 1 Lakh each).
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. - 32462 of 2018
Applicant :- Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is delay of 14 hours in lodging of the FIR without any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that applicant and first informant both are neighbours. There is a dispute of money between applicant and first informant on account of which the applicant has falsely been roped in the present case. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. 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 04.06.2018 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, 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 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Pintu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2018, under Sections 354A (i)(ii), 452 & 506 IPC & Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station- Dhaulana, District- Hapur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. One Lac) each (One should be of a family member) 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.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Cour in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail in the miscellaneous bail application.
Whether the conditions of bail should include cooperation with the trial and preclusion of tampering with evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶13
AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Pintu
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
