Allowed

Karan @ Alle v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019BAIL/47089/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application in a POCSO case involving alleged molestation was allowed. The court granted bail subject to conditions requiring the applicant to appear in court, not seek adjournments, and refrain from misusing liberty, citing the Apex Court decision in Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.

Karan @ Alle Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47089 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Karan @ Alle Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Karan @ Alle with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.204 of 2019, under Sections 354-A, 363, 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kheragarh, District-Agra, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

The first information report has been lodged by Rakesh Sharma on 22nd August, 2019 against four named accused persons alleging therein that on 21st August, 2019 at 01:00 p.m., the niece of the informant, namely, Priyanshi, who was studying in Class-IX in Antyodaya Intermediate College, was coming to her house from school and when she reached Canara Bank, all the accused persons, who were already present there, started teasing her but when the informant saw and shouted, they ran away. The victim told the informant that they tease her regularly, due to which the present first information report has been lodged.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no offence alleged against the applicant but only an attempt to cause offence has been alleged. All the accused are well known to the victim and are the residents of the same locality. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to earlier enmity with the informant. The alleged incident took place in broad day light, but there is no independent or public witness from which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The victim has also refused to get her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded, which also makes the prosecution case doubtful.

¶10

Apart from the above, it is also submitted that the co-accused, namely, Niketan has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st October, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41447 of 2019. The case of the applicant is on better footing to that of the aforesaid coaccused. As such, the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant

¶11

is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 13th September, 2019.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 7.11.2019

¶21

Sushil/-

Karan @ Alle v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan @ Alle v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ankush @ Lakshmi Chand Vs State of U.P.

Nikhil @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Chand Shah Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.