Allowed

Pramod v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020BAIL/3264/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Pramod involved in a crime under Sections 363 I.P.C. and 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act. The court considered the victim's voluntary statement, lack of history of escape, and severity of punishment while granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, co-operate with trial, and refrain from criminal activities.

Pramod Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3264 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.85 of 2019, under Sections 363 I.P.C. and 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Nibohara, District Agra, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Informant. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fake. It is further submitted that the victim and applicant are major. Victim went with her own free will. Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not supported the prosecution case and stated that she went with accused as per her own will. There is no allegation of rape against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 01.06.2019 and having no criminal history against him. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that at the time of incident victim was major and consenting party.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, age of victim, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and allegation made against the applicant and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶10

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Pramod be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶14

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶15

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Pramod v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Veer Alias Shera Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Waris Vs State of U.P.

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P.

Shriram Vs State of U.P.

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