Allowed

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019BAIL/28770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Santosh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28770 of 2019. The applicant contended false implication regarding a sexual offence case. Bail was granted on personal bond with two sureties and strict conditions. Expedited trial directed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering and harassment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28770 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State. The counsel for the complainant is not present.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2019, under sections 364/342/376-D IPC, Police Station Barhan, District Agra.

¶8

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

¶9

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 and the F.I.R has been lodged after four months of the incident in pursuance of the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C; the alleged victim is married woman and she is mother of four children; the alleged victim has gone on her own sweet will with one Mannu and she has recovered from the possession of said Mannu, much reliance has been placed upon the averment as made in paragraph no. 22 of the bail application which has not been denied by learned counsel for the complainant in paragraph no. 16 of the counter affidavit. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 21.05.2019 and applicant has criminal history of one case. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant Santosh 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:

¶14

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

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶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 :- 12.9.2019 Vikram

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of Up

Arjun Singh Vs State of Up

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veeru Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P. and Another