Allowed

Smt. Pooja Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020BAIL/30054/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, a child victim implicated in offences under IPC and POCSO Act, by releasing her on a personal bond. Directions were given to file an undertaking to provide sureties within one month due to lockdown constraints, along with specific conditions regarding court attendance and misconduct during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties each, and includes an undertaking to furnish required sureties within one month.

Smt. Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30054 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Km Preete,Jigyasa Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

Applicant is Chachi of the victim. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that there is contradiction in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after about a month; the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that she left her house of her own; she was continuously being beaten by mother and father; applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and she is languishing in jail since 13.07.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, she will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶7

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

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicant Smt. Pooja Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 120B I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Bulandshahar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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,

¶13

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

¶14

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶15

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

(vi) The computer generated copy of the order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

(vii) 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.

¶18

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶19

The order reads thus:

¶20

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶21

Order Date :- 7.10.2020

¶22

P. Sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2020.10.07 16:44:12 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Pooja Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Devi 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

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Ambrish Mishra @ Ambu Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Khan Vs State of U.P.

N.K. Jalan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Goyal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Vinod Singh Vs State of U.P.