Allowed

Netra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2020BAIL/25451/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application for the applicant Netra Pal, who was remanded in custody for alleged offences under IPC and POCSO. Despite lack of witness appearance, the court granted bail subject to personal bond and two local sureties, citing victim's late statement and medical report.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two local sureties in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25451 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Netra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Vide Court's order dated 17.09.2020, notice was issued to opposite party no.2. Office report dated 14.10.2020 shows that notice was personally served upon opposite party no.2 Jugendra, but today none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Netrapal with a prayer to release him in Case Crime No.254 of 2019, under sections 363, 376 I.P.C., 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kadar Chauk, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

As per FIR version, it has been alleged that informant's daughter who is aged about 16 years went alongwith her mother to purchase medicine on 20.10.2019. From there she eloped/ran away alongwith the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR is delayed by 14 days but no plausable explanation has been given in the FIR regarding delay. The statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborating with the facts narrated in the FIR. It has been further stated that as per medical report, victim is aged about 18 years and no sign of sexual assault was found in her body. It is next submitted that as per statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she ran away alongwith the applicant and solemnized marriage in the Temple and they lived as husband and wife for about one month. It has been further submitted that the victim was tutored by her parents to change the version of the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant is innocent. Their parents does not want to marry her daughter alongwith the applicant whereas the victim was interested to live alongwith the applicant. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant from the judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the

¶9

applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is also contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.12.2019.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. oppose the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the victim is minor as per version of the FIR, hence, the applicant should not be granted bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., medical report regarding age of the victim and evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the view laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Netra Pal , who is involved in Case Crime No.254 of 2019, under sections 363, 376 I.P.C., 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kadar Chauk, District Budaun, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed. 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.10.2020/SKD

Netra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netra Pal 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

Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Patel Vs State of U.P.

Anil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Paswan Vs State of U.P.