Allowed

Sanju @ Sanjeev v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/28129/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Sections 376 (2)N IPC and 6(tha) POCSO. It held the applicant entitled to bail based on victim statements that she was married to him, despite her age, granting bail with stringent conditions regarding court presence and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to undertaking not to tamper with evidence and conditions for trial attendance.

Sanju @ Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28129 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju @ Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of informant.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No.275 of 2019, under Section 376 (2)N I.P.C. & Section 6(tha) of POCSO Act, Police Station Siroli, District Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Initially the F.I.R. was lodged against Nakshtrapal and another co-accused, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has not levelled any allegation against the applicant. Mother and brother married the victim with the applicant. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the victim has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant. He submits that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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 there is no criminal history of the applicant and is languishing in jail since 27.05.2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that date of birth of the victim is 10.04.2006, according to which at the time of alleged incident she was near about 13 years old, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

¶11

solemnization of marriage of the victim with the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Sanju @ Sanjeev involved in 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

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

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

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2020/Jitendra

Sanju @ Sanjeev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju @ Sanjeev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham @ Abhishek Chaudhray Vs State of U.P.

Shani Alias Sannu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kuttu Alias Rajkaran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajababu @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and Another