Allowed

Nadeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2020BAIL/8242/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Court considered seeking enlargement on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under IPC 376D and POCSO. The applicant cited parity with a co-accused. Holding a prima facie case for bail, the Court granted release on personal bond with sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail granted; applicant released on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8242 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra 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

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Nadeem seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 193 of 2018, under Sections 376D IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at P.S. Saraikhwaja, District Jaunpur.

¶7

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by complainant Smt. Geeta Devi, the mother of victim Reema against applicant Nadeem, co-accused Amir and one unknown person. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that after being discharged from hospital when she came back to home taking her husband who was subjected to operation of hernia (disease), she saw into the mobile phone of her brother-in-law ( dewar ) the photograph of her minor daughter Reema aged about 14 years with Aamir and accused Nadeem. On inquiry, she was told by her daughter Reema that three days ago she had gone to the field behind house to attend call of nature ( Shauch Kriya ) where co-accused Aamir, Nadeem (applicant) and one unknown person, they caught and took her photograph and committed rape with her. After coming to know of the said incident, the matter was reported to the police by the complainant.

¶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 further submitted that the applicant has parity with co-accused Amir who has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8300 of 2019, a copy of the bail order passed on by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. It is also argued that the case of the present accused is similar to that of the coaccused (Amir). Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 11.08.2018 and that in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He has not disputed the plea of the bail parity of the applicant with co-accused Amir.

¶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 Nadeem 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 :- 5.11.2020 LBY

Nadeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Alias Satpal Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Jaysawal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash Patel Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P.