The single-judge Criminal Misc. Bail Application was allowed. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail despite the grave nature of the charges, subject to standard conditions.
Released on bail via personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 842 of 2020
Applicant :- Sandeep @ Neetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 323 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Rajabpur, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.08.2002 and she is more than 16 years of age.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Mohit has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30622 of 2019 vide order dated 21.08.2019 and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footings as that of the co-accused Mohit and the police report has already been submitted.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.06.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that from the perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, there is clear contradiction, as such, prima facie a case for bail is made out.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and that the applicant is in jail since 14.06.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Sandeep @ Neetu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Nadim
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and POCSO Act.
Sandeep @ Neetu
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
