Allowed

Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020BAIL/2922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court allowed a third bail application in a criminal trial for offences under IPC and POCSO Act, relieving the applicant on bail with the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2922 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Lal,Manvendra Narain Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantSanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar in Special Trial No.43 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.396 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, DistrictAllahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

This is third bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.05.2018 directing the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Second bail application was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 31.05.2019.

¶8

Fresh ground on which the bail is being sought is that statement of proseuctrix has been recorded in Special Trial No.43 of 2017 in which she has given contradictory version regarding participation of the applicant and has not levelled any allegation of rape against the applicant. Though she has supported her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,it is argued that at this stage prosecutrix has changed her stand and has given contradictory version which is inconsistent with the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during trial. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 25.03.2017, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,

¶11

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant-Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-

¶13

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.2.2020

¶18

MN/-

Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilavar and Another Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Pyaare Lal Vs State of U.P.

Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh Yadav @ Shyam Bihari Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another