Allowed

Ibrahim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018BAIL/39218/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Ibrahim, accused of kidnapping and POCSO offences, noting his lack of criminal history and the assertion that the FIR was false. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to five conditions including non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39218 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Ibrahim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Ibrahim, Ganesh and mother of Ganesh alleging that on 2.7.2017 Ibrahim kidnapped the daughter of complainant Ram Bahal for compelling her to marry him, with the help of Ganesh and mother of Ganesh.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.7.2017(more than five months) having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated in the present case; victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that her parents used to beat her, she left home on her own free will, nobody kidnapped her and false FIR was lodged by someone against Ibrahim, Ganesh and mother of Ganesh; in case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, 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 the 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 view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Ibrahim involved in Case Crime No.241 of 2017, under Section 363, 366-Ka IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Puranderpur, District Maharajganj 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 :- 26.2.2018 P.P.

Ibrahim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim 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

Pravendra @ Pinta Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Saeeda @ Saeed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Robin Vs State of U.P.