Allowed

Mazid Ali v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020BAIL/34863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Mazid Ali in a POCSO and rape case where the victim could not identify the accused, noting a crisis of confidence in the charge and exceptional circumstances due to court functioning delays. Bail granted without immediate sureties. Subjects: Bail. Children. FIR discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Grants bail on personal bond without sureties until courts resume normal functioning, subject to strict conditions regarding appearance and trial efficiency. Relief granted based on evidence weaknesse

Mazid Ali Vs State of U.P and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34863 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mazid Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.180 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bhuta, District- Bareilly is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is not named in the FIR, though the age of the victim is 12 years and she has attributed the role of ravishing her upon the named accused person and unknown persons. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim in which she has clearly indicated that she was ravished by some unknown persons, whose name the victim does not know. The unknown person wearing blue vests and half pant. It has been clearly indicated that no identification parade was conducted to identify the real assailant. There is deep crisis about the identity of the real assailant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.06.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Mazid Ali , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

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

¶17

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.12.2020

¶23

Abhishek Sri.

Mazid Ali v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazid Ali 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 Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Meraj Vs State of Up

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramsheesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku Vs State of U.P.