Allowed

Paras Alias Mannprit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2019BAIL/2590/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application in a POCSO and rape case. It held that prima facie grounds were shown to challenge the prosecution case due to contradictions and the victim's age, granting bail subject to conditions and directing expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions; trial directed to be decided expeditiously.

Paras Alias Mannprit Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2590 of 2019 Applicant :- Paras Alias Mannprit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Shukla,Amit Kumar Tiwari,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Misra

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶4

The case has been taken up in the revised call.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nadim, learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Fugana, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶7

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

¶8

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; there are vast contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as per the medical, the age of the victim is 18 years. Further contention is that the victim girl was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and it was only she was recovered, under the pressure of family members she has give statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; medical examination report does not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the rape. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 13.9.218 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

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

¶10

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 Paras Alias Mannprit 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶17

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 :- 1.5.2019 Kuldeep

Paras Alias Mannprit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Alias Mannprit 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

Ajay Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Malik Vs State of U.P.

Sangita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Alias Shishupal Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.