Allowed

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020BAIL/46422/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376, and POCSO Act, considering the victim statement and applicant's background, with multiple conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties to ensure attendance for trial and comply with conditions.

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46422 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, 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. 587 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police StationKotwali Karwi, District- Chitrakoot is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 19.9.2019.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim under Section 363 I.P.C. on 17.8.2019 against the applicant and two others with the allegation that the applicant after developing intimate relationship with her minor daughter has taken away with the aid of his brother-in-law, Kishore Lal Sonkar and sister, Radha. The victim was recovered on 27.8.2019 and on the same day her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has clearly declares that she was in intimate relationship with the applicant and she wants to marry the applicant. After coming to know about the relationship with the applicant, infuriated mother of the victim lodged the present first information report. As per the medical report, the victim is aged about 17 years and giving benefit of two years either ways, she is major. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 6.9.2019, she took somersault and changed the entire textures of the case. Therefore, the applicant, having no criminal antecedents to his credit deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar , who is

¶11

involved in Case Crime No. 587 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Karwi, District- Chitrakoot, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶13

(ii) 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 I.P.C.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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 HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER

¶17

THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

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

¶19

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-:

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Vikas

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar 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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Dharmvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pratima Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Bobi Vs State of Up

Chedilal Vs State of Up