Allowed

Kamal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019BAIL/2161/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging arrest under IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The Court held that the applicant was falsely implicated, denied bail. The Court directed expeditious trial completion within six months. Conditions for bail include engagements with the trial court procedurally.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions and directive for expeditious trial within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2161 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kamal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri A.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended 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 and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Neither the prosecutrix was enticed away by the applicant nor she was recovered from his possession. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation against the applicant and there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The victim has assigned the role of sexual assault upon her to the co-accused Rishu and Shyam and she remained in the company of these accused for a month, but she did not seek any help from the public. However, medical evidence does not support the prosecution version because no injury was found on the person of the victim. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Kamal involved in Case Crime No.203 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366,120-B, I.P.C. & Sec.3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Erwakatra, District Auraiya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 accordance with law.

¶12

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment,, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018(SC) 20.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.3.2019 IA

Kamal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal 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

Chhotu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Singh @ Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Maikal Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Bhoora Vs State of U.P.