Allowed

Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018BAIL/8264/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Act 3/4, the Court granted bail to the applicant by a coordinate bench. The applicant claimed false implication due to an aged prosecutrix and inconsistencies in the medical report. The Court granted bail with strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount along with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8264 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Noor Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the earlier order of coordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.03.2018 copy of medical report of the victim has been filed through supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the delayed FIR was registered under sections 363, 376 and 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the applicant by the parents of the prosecutrix and as per FIR version, the age of the prosecutrix is 12 years. In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., on 19th December 2017, she stated that she is a student of class VI and aged about 12 years. In the company of the applicant she visited Nepal and there rape was committed upon her by the applicant thereafter with the assistance of the parents of

¶8

the applicant she solemnized marriage with him and returned back to her home. As per medical examination report the prosecutrix is aged about 15 years, no external or internal injury was found on her person, therefore, it is difficult to decipher the truthfullness of the allegation of rape upon the prosecutrix by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2017, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Noor Mohammad, involved in Case Crime No. 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Kothibhar, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE

¶13

WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE

¶18

TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 3.4.2018

¶20

shailesh

Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Mohammad 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

Aslam Vs Sate of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar @ Mangru Vs State of U.P.

Gangadeen Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Gauri @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P.