The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC and PCOCSA. The court directed the applicant to furnish sureties, cooperate with the trial, and prevented tampering with evidence.
Bail granted to Nawal Mishra on personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.
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. - 40797 of 2018
Applicant :- Nawal Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, 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. It is further submitted that first information report was lodged against the unknown person. The complicity of the applicants has not been disclosed by the two victim girls in their statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 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 08.04.2018 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 Nawal Mishra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 90 of 2018, under Sections 363, 370A IPC & Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Bhadohi, District- Bhadohi on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following condition:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial 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 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court 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 :- 26.10.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the applicant despite the serious nature of offences involving IPC and PCPOCSA sections due to lack of criminal history and assurance of cooperation.
Whether the trial should be expedited after the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶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
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nawal Mishra
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
