Allowed

Shriram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2019BAIL/4637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of Shriram, accused under IPC sections 364, 302, 376, 120B and POCSO, citing lack of direct evidence and no criminal history, subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4637 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shriram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged by the informant against unknown persons alleging that the daughter of complainant was missing and dead body was recovered on 11.9.2016, later on, the name of three accused persons namely, AmarPal and Abhishek and Narendra were surfaced. During investigation Narendra wa arrested by the police, he stated that Shailendra @ Shilendra Singh and Sriram were also indulged in this crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Narendra and Shailendra have been enlarged on bail by trial court vide order dated 26.5.2017 and 27.6.2017. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. There is no eye witness account of independent witness, he was not named in FIR and there is no recovery from the possession of applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.1.2019 (near about two months) having no criminal history and in case the applicant is released on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Shriram involved in Case Crime No.298 of

¶12

2016, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO, P.S. Jaithra, District Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶17

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 5.3.2019 Harshita

Shriram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundram @ Pravendra Vs State of U.P.

Santosh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shabbu Vs State of U.P.

Usha Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey Vs State of U.P.