Allowed

Gyan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2019BAIL/16446/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a third bail application of an accused facing charges under IPC and POCSO. Bail was granted upon executing a personal bond with two sureties. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C., citing relevant Supreme Court precedents, and to ensure witness attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties; trial to be concluded expeditiously.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16446 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gyan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harsh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Asothar, District Fatehpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 29.02.2016 and second bail application was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2018

¶7

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

¶8

It is contended that while rejecting the second bail certain direction was issued to the court concerned to conclude the trial as early as possible/preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, but till date trial has not been concluded. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 28.01.2014 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant Gyan Singh 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

¶13

conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 13.9.2019 Ujjawal

Gyan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Singh 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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Veeru Vs State of U.P.

Akhlesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Uma Shankar Srivas Vs State of U.P. and Anr.