Allowed

Jahid Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2019BAIL/45800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This third bail application by Jahid Ali, accused under IPC and POCSO sections, was allowed. The court observed that the victim's statement implicated only a co-accused. While prima facie grounds for bail were made out, the court ordered release on bond and directed the trial court to conclude the case expeditiously referencing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences. Trial court directed to conclude case expeditiously.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 3rd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45800 of 2018 Applicant :- Jahid Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. K. Pandey, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

This third bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.789 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.

¶5

This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 18.04.2016. Thereafter, the second bail application was rejected on 03.08.2017.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant in the third bail application is that subsequent to the rejection of second bail application the victim herself is being examined as P.W.-2, the copy of the statement of P.W.-2 is being annexed on page no.60 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the same is perused by the Court. The contention is that in her entire statement the victim has not made any allegation against the present applicant and all the allegations having been made against the coaccused Junaid, who happens to be the brother of the present applicant. Accordingly, it is contended that the role of co-accused Junaid stands on a different footing and the case of present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Junaid. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2015 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2015, with no previous criminal history, 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Jahid Ali 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 VKG

Jahid Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahid Ali 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

Meenu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jasveer @ Jasvendra Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivesh Tripathi Vs State of U.P.