Allowed

Salil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2021BAIL/11689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Salil in a prosecution for criminal mischief and offences under Section 354-A IPC and POCSO Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits and imposed standard conditions regarding appearance and preventing adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Salil on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Salil Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11689 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Salil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh, Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0003 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354-A, 506 IPC and under Section 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station Jaspura, District Banda.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on false facts. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 31.12.2020, whereas the impugned first information report has been lodged on 04.01.2021 and no reason has been explained regarding delay in lodging the FIR. As per Pariwar Register, the age of the victim is 18 years. He further submits that as per medical examination report, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim. In statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has given contradictory statement as given in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Monu Alias Umesh Nishad has already granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14489 of 2021. He further submits that since the co-accused has already been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Salil , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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 IPC.

¶13

(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 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 HIM 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

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.6.2021

¶22

Ajeet

Salil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salil 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

Sarvesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulabu Yadav@ Gulab Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Fursat Vs State of U.P.

Prashannjeet Vs State of U.P.