Allowed

Yasin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2020BAIL/17287/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application regarding a minor victim's case involving IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. The learned Single Judge granted bail, relying on the victim's initial denial of allegations and the applicant's lack of antecedents, despite a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific undertaking conditions regarding court appearances and adjournments.

Yasin Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17287 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Yasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Abid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Faiz

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

As per the Office report dated 19.8.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e. mail which has been allowed vide order dated 18.8.2020, hence the present bail application has come up before this Court today in the cause list of fresh cases through e-court. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶6

Heard Sri M.A. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohammad Faiz, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim as per the F.I.R. as well as report of Ossification test is aged about 16 years. He submits that as both the victim and the applicant belong to the same community they married each other, the said fact has been mentioned in para-21 of the present bail application. He submits that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has denied the allegation levelled against the applicant and stated that she voluntarily left her parental home on being annoyed with her parents. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 21.3.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant Yasin involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2020 under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Shahi, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 19.8.2020 Shiraz

¶17

Digitally signed by Justice Ramesh Sinha Date: 2020.08.19 17:18:17 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yasin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Shrma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Khusboon Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Atarkali Vs State of U.P.

Devendra and Another Vs State of U.P.