Allowed

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2020BAIL/2030/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Chamber judgment allowing a bail application for an accused involved under IPC and POCSO Act. The court released the applicant on personal bond and heavy sureties, imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibiting tampering with evidence, while incorporating COVID-19 related relief regarding surety submission.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by filing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence tampering.

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2030 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Re: Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2019

¶6

The Exemption Application is allowed.

¶7

Re: Order on Bail Application

¶8

The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

¶9

Heard Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni with a prayer to release him on bail in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2019 , under Sections- 363, 366, 376/511, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Vrindavan, District - Mathura , during pendency of trial.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶12

(i) against the complaint lodged, the applicant is in confinement since 17.12.2019;

¶13

(ii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶14

(iii) charge-sheet appears to have been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶15

(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the occurrence, inasmuch as, certain disputes had been arisen between the applicant and the mother of the victim, for which reason, he has been falsely implicated. In any case, the allegation of attempt to rape has been made in circumstance of child marriage;

¶16

(v) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to

¶17

the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶18

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶19

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) 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.

¶24

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶25

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self

¶26

attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶27

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

(viii) It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶29

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶30

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶31

However, immediately upon restoration of the normalcy of working of court, learned trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of nine months, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment.

¶32

Order Date :- 3.6.2020 Prakhar

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni 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

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saif @ Shaif Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Nadda Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Rajak Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of Up

Dr. Aadesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another