Allowed

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018BAIL/48123/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting bail in a criminal case involving kidnapping and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO. The court found the FIR suspicious but did not opine on merits, and released the applicant on bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and to appear in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48123 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Prakash Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 271 of 2017, u/s 363, 366, 376(2) Jha IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipari, District Kaushambi with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely nominated in the F.I.R. on the basis of suspicion by the father of the prosecutrix lodged on 25.8.2017 at 2.40 pm regarding alleged kidnapping by the applicant on 21.8.2017 at 4.00 pm. It is stated that according to prosecution, police recovered the prosecutrix near Tilhapur crossing, soon after her recovery, she was questioned by the I.O. as to whether she had gone with the applicant, her reply was in negative and she stated that she wants to go with her father. Subsequently it appears that under the pressure of her father in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she was going to attend call of nature, the applicant forcibly made her sit on the motorcycle and took her to a relative place where she was kept for three days. It is argued that the applicant was not armed with any weapon and it is highly improbable that a girl aged about 17-18 years as per her radiological report, could have been abducted in such a manner. From the contradictory statement of the prosecutrix it appears that infact she was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 5.9.2017.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However he could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Guddu involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2018

¶16

Dhirendra/

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Vs State of U.P.

Parvez Vs State of U.P.

Ram Govind Singh Vs State of U.P.

Yunus Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.