Allowed

Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2020BAIL/21185/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC Sections 354, 452, 504, 506, 376 and POCSO Act. The court relied on delay in FIR and lack of medical examination, directing stringent conditions for release.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in trial, not tampering with witnesses, and refraining from illegal activities.

Manjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21185 of 2020 Applicant :- Manjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar,Bablu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 72 of 2019, under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Pakari, district-Ballia, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶6

The First Information Report was lodged by the victim against the present accused, alleging therein that on 24.9.2019 at about 1:00 p.m. when she was sleeping in her house the present accused had molested her. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.9.2019 and the report of the incident was lodged against the applicant after an inordinate and unexplained delay of one month on 24.10.2019. He next submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-6) has not made allegation of rape against the applicant. She has specifically stated that when she was sleeping in her house the applicant entered in the house and tried to outrage her modesty. Same facts of the FIR were reiterated by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-9). The facts stated by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted on their face value especially in view of the fact that she has not dared to come forward to get herself medically examined. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 13.5.2020 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶7

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for

¶9

the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Let the applicant, Manjeet Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

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

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.9.2020 Faridul

Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh 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

Anand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Gaud Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Nagar Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.