Allowed

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2019BAIL/8002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant, Santosh, who was a co-accused in cases involving IPC Sections 363, 372, POCSO Section 376 (implied by Parity context), and IT Act, relying on parity and Article 21. The order fixed conditions regarding court presence and absence consequences without adjudicating the charge merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearance and consequences of absence or misuse.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8002 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Shiv Prakash @ Saurabh and Mohammad Hakim have been granted bail by this Court on 20.2.2019 and 20.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.43219 of 2018 and 41413 of 2018, a copy of said orders has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 1.9.2018.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Santosh involved in Case Crime No.1444 of 2018, under Sections 363, 372 I.P.C., Sec. 17 POCSO Act & Sec. 5-A,The Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Sector-20, District Gautambudh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 2.4.2019 Dev/-

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javar Singh @ Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Atveer Vs State of U.P.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Patel Vs Union of India and Another

Prempal @ Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs D.R.I. Varanasi