Allowed

Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2020BAIL/22205/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant charged with abduction, rape, and offences under the POCSO Act, allowing him to furnish a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions ensuring court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties with conditions regarding court presence.

Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22205 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh, Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rafeek Ahmad Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned senior counsel, Shri Amarendra Nath Singh assisted by Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh appearing for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

None is present on behalf of the complainant even in revised call.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 16 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Tehbarpur, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The report of this incident was lodged by complainant on 27.02.2020 alleging therein that on 18.01.2020 the accused applicant abducted his minor daughter, aged about 17 years from City Azamgarh and she was taken away by the accused to Lucknow where he committed rape upon her. On information given by her daughter the complainant reached there and brought back her and the matter was reported to the police.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued by the learned senior counsel that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 18.01.2020 and report of this incident was lodged on 27.02.2020 after a delay of about 40 days. The learned senior counsel further submits that the girl is a consenting party and she has gone out with the accused applicant

¶10

out of her own sweet will and she has lived with the applicant at different places and she never raised any alarm against the alleged abduction made by the applicant. The whole prosecution story is false and concocted. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 16.03.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶13

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶14

Let applicant Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;

¶16

(2). 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;

¶17

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(4). 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Or der Date :- 10.9.2020 LBY

Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu 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

Sachin Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pal Alias Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Chandrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Harjeet @ Arjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Dashrath Vs State of U.P.