Allowed

Narendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020BAIL/36667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowable bail to the applicant accused. The court found a prima facie case for bail despite serious charges including rape and kidnapping of a minor, without expressing an opinion on the merits. The applicant was granted bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36667 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 129 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Chharra, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the mother of the alleged victim and it was mentioned in the First Information Report that age of the alleged victim is 18 years and the marriage of victim was fixed to be solemnized on 18.06.2020 and when the family members of the victim had gone to do purchasing of goods, the accused Narendra came at about 4:00 P.M. on 08.06.2020 at the house of the complainant and carried away the daughter of the complainant along with him. The alleged victim had carried away golden ornaments and Rs. 1.5 lakh with her. The complainant had searched her daughter in her relations and when they could not find, the matter was reported to the police.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the girl was in consensual relationship with the present accused and was major at the time of incident. It is also submitted that she had gone with the present accused out of her won sweet will and lived with the accused at various places. She did not raise any alarm anywhere regarding her abduction by the present accused. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she solemnized marriage with the accused, and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not supported the prosecution version; she has denied that she was carried away by the present accused. The learned counsel for applicant submits that she has not consented for her medical examination and therefore, her medical examination could not be conducted. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 19.06.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Narendra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;

¶14

(2). 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;

¶15

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(4). 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 LBY

Narendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra 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

Munish Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Ramlagan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu @ Abhay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Samir Vs State of U.P and Another