Allowed

Ankit Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019BAIL/1080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Ankit Mishra, charged under IPC and POCSO/SC/ST Act provisions. Bail was granted with conditions to ensure witness safety and evidence preservation. The court directed swift disposal of the trial to avoid delay.

What did the court decide?

Release of Ankit Mishra on bail via personal bond and sureties with specific conditions regarding witness protection and appearance.

Ankit Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1080 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Harish Chandra Mishra,Ranjeet Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghav Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2018, under Sections 306, 354 IPC and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Badagaon, District Jhansi.

¶8

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.

¶9

The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; much reliance has been placed upon the statement of the first informant, namely, Matadeen, contents of which are self explicit. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 14.11.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2019 Kuldeep

Ankit Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Mishra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijendra Vs State of U.P.

Arvind @ Kallua Vs State of U.P.

Dev Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rani Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Kallu Panday Vs State of U.P.

Ritesh Tokas @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.