Allowed

Firoj Khan Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018BAIL/9533/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under sections 363, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, after victim and informant were dispensed with, imposing strict conditions regarding attendance and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions imposed in interest of justice.

Firoj Khan Alias Monu Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9533 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Firoj Khan Alias Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Babu Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Lal Babu Lal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, the victim along with the first informant of the case are present today in the Court. Their presence is dispensed with.

¶8

Their Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that according to the radiological report the victim is aged about 17 years, therefore, taking into consideration 2/3 years of the margin in age, permissible by the Apex Court, the victim is a major girl. As per her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim and her family members were well acquainted with the present applicant. On 10.09.2017, she on her own volition and accord accompanied the present applicant to Nizamuddin and

¶9

Pahelgaon, made physical relations with him for 10-15 days, thereafter, she was nabbed by the police at Nizamuddin Bus Stand by the police on 26.09.2017. Lastly it has been urged that the applicant is in jail since 24.09.2017, having no criminal antecedents to his credit. 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 Firoz Khan @ Monu, involved in Case Crime No. 607 of 2017, under sections 363, 376 IPC amd 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghazibad 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 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

¶13

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

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious

¶19

repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 10.4.2018

¶20

shailesh

Firoj Khan Alias Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Khan Alias Monu 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

Bhure Vs State of U.P.

Jagatpal Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Keshore @ Babua Vs State of U.P.

Shitesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mustaq Vs State of U.P.

Ahsan Vs State of U.P.