Allowed

Beerbali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018BAIL/41339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail under Section 376(2)(I), 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, the court observed that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and the conflict arose from a property dispute. Without commenting on the merits, the court held the applicant entitled to bail subject to specific conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41339 of 2017 Applicant :- Beerbali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant which is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.214 of 2017, under Section 376(2)(I), 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi, with the prayer to release him on bail.

¶6

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the first informant who happens to be the wife of applicant's real brother and dispute between them was going on over partition of the joint property. The first information report was lodged after nine days of the incident on 4.7.2017. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 6.7.2017 and the version of rape is not supported by medical evidence. The statements of first informant and the prosecutrix have been recorded and there is no possibility of tempering the prosecution evidence. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.7.2017 having no criminal antecedents.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the prosecutrix is minor, however, he could not refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let applicant Beerbali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that :-

¶10

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (2) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (3) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶11

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the Courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.8.2018?Hasnain

Beerbali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beerbali 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

Bhupendra Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surjeet Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Singh @ Sanskar Vs State of U.P.