Allowed

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 May 2019BAIL/20020/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, granted bail to the applicant who is accused under Sections 363, 366, 354-B IPC and POCSO Act. The court imposed conditions including not tampering with witnesses, aiding the trial sincerly, and refraining from any further criminal activities during the pendency of the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20020 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hardev Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Devendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 368, 354-B, 342, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Patiyali, District- Kasganj , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the victims on 01.09.2015 alleging therein that her two daughters, namely, Km. Rachana and Km. Satyabhama had gone to visit Patiyali Bazar on 27.08.2015 but they did not return and later, it was discovered that the accused persons had enticed them away. It has been submitted that younger daughter Km. Satyabhama had returned back and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that though she was forcibly taken away along with her elder sister but when she started crying, she was left back. It is next submitted that from the statement of the victim Km. Rachana, who is the elder sister of Km. Satyabhama, it appears that she knew the co-accused-Yogesh and she left her house out of her own sweet will along with her younger sister and had voluntarily married the co-accused-Yogesh and they are living happily as husband and wife. She has not stated anything against the applicant. As per medical examination report of the victim-Km. Rachana, she is aged about 17 years. It is next submitted that the applicant being brother of the co-accusedYogesh has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the co-accused-Yogesh has already been granted bail by the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 20755 of 2016, copy of which order has been appended as

¶8

Annexure no.11 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2019. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.5.2019 JK Yadav

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin @ Deenu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Inam @ Iqram Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Sharad Rastogi @ Mamu Vs State of U.P.