Allowed

Talib v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020ABAIL/1144/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava, J. allowed the anticipatory bail application of Talib, accused of abduction, kidnapping, and rape under IPC and POCSO provisions. Bail granted on conditions including appearance, no inhibition, and expedited investigation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and conditions including investigation completion within four months.

Talib Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1144 of 2020 Applicant :- Talib Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kumar,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,

¶2

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated being brother-in-law of main accused Imran and the allegation against him is that he had cooperated along with main accused in elopement of the prosecutrix and he was seen in the Car by which the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was allegedly kidnapped by the accused Imran; he has further argued that even in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of active participation of the applicant in her elopement and also of any sexual assault on her by him. It is further argued that allegation of commission of rape is against Imran, who was instrumental in kidnapping the victim aged about 16 years and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused. The applicant has no criminal history. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶6

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶7

In the event of arrest of the applicant Talib involved in Case Crime No. 249 of 2019, u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 and 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Kundarki, District Moradabad, shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶8

1.that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶9

2.that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶10

3.that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶11

4.that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶12

5.that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

¶13

6.that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶14

7.that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶15

8.that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶16

9.that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶17

10.that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶18

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.2.2020/Dhirendra/

Talib v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talib v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Anant Karn Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sonu Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.