Allowed

Mohd Laddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2019BAIL/8296/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8296 of 2019, the Single Judge granted bail to Mohd. Laddu, accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, directing him to furnish bond and sureties and adhere to specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8296 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Laddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Dubey,Rajesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case; that the alleged incident has taken place on 08.03.2018 and F.I.R. was lodged on 16.03.2018 at about 21.09 hrs after lapse of 8 days and no explanation of delaying the lodging the F.I.R. by the nformant; that in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, she has clearly stated that she herself went to house of applicant on her own sweet will; that according to medical report, age of victim is 16-17 years and no sign of forcefull penetration of vagine by any blunt object; that victim has stated in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement that applicant neither kidnapped nor threatened to kill her at the time of alleged incident only hot talk made between them; that neither the applicant has committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution nor there is any credible evidence regarding his complicity in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated just to harass, victimise and exert undue pressure on him. He further submits that there are no chances of applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is in jail since 21.04.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail application submitting that allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, and therefore, bail may not be granted.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Mohd. Laddu involved in Case Crime No.270 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Loni Border, District Gaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶10

(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶13

(iv)The applicant shall report to the police station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behavior.

¶14

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

¶15

Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.3.2019 Vibha Singh

Mohd Laddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Laddu 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

Ram Singh @ Panda Vs State of U.P.

Tashlim Ahmad Vs State of U.P.and Others

Bhagat Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lekhraj and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.