Allowed

Sher Bahadur Saroj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020BAIL/25950/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to Sher Bahadur Saroj in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, allowing release on a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions aimed at ensuring his presence and preventing tampering with witnesses, noting conflicting reports on the victim's age.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-tampering with evidence.

Sher Bahadur Saroj Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25950 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sher Bahadur Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radha Kant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Despite service, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act 2012, Police Station Maharajganj, District Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR version on 1.12.2019 between 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. victim aged about 15 years was enticed away by the applicant. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she went along with the applicant, out of her own will, lived with him for about two months in Allahabad and performed marriage in a temple in Machlishahar. It is further submitted that as per paper no.10 annexed with the supplementary affidavit, X-ray report of right elbow, right knee and right wrist of the victim have been found fused indicates that she was major at the time of incident. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.1.2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that as per academic record, date of birth of the victim is 22.3.2004, according to which, she was minor at the time of incident, therefore, he does not deserve any benevolence.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of the victim u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as well as X-ray

¶11

report, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶12

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence and pressurize the witnesses during trial.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 m.a.

Sher Bahadur Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Bahadur Saroj 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

Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet @ Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saibood Vs State of U.P.