Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019BAIL/17643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearings two bail applications arising from a POCSO case. The High Court held that denying bail on merits without considering detention severity, innocence, and absence of missing minor was inappropriate. Allowed bail on furnishing bond and sureties with conditions against tampering and witness cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Sanju and Samarpal released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each with standard undertaking conditions.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. and another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17643 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16462 of 2019 Applicant :- Samarpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17643 of 2019, notices was ordered to be issued to opposite party no.2-Smt. Meena which has been personally served upon her as per Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badau dated 19.08.2019.

¶7

Both the applications arise out of same case crime number and the same incident, hence these are being decided by a common order.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

Both the accused-applicants, involved in Special Criminal Case No.2423 of 2018, under Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kadarchowk, District Badaun, applied for bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity for the purpose of harassment. Applicants committed no offence. A false and fabricated story has been set up against the applicants and they have been summoned under Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for trial on complaint case. There are general allegations against all the accused persons. There is no medical report regarding the rape. Applicants are in jail since 26.11.2018. It is further submitted that there are no possibility of the applicants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Lastly, it is submitted that co-accused, namely, Dharmendra has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶11

Application No.4717 of 2019.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that applicants have committed rape upon the minor daughter of complainant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicants in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicants deserves bail.

¶14

Accordingly, bail applications are allowed.

¶15

Let applicants Sanju and Samarpal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

The applicants shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶18

During trial, they shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶19

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶20

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.9.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Sanju v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju v. State of U.P. and another

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

Arman Alias Faijan Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

Riyaz and Another Vs State of U.P.