Single judge bail application granted to applicant charged under IPC 354A and POCSO. Court relied on prima facie satisfaction, severity of punishment, Article 21, and Dataram Singh judgment to release applicant on personal bond with sureties.
Released on bail under personal bond and two sureties on furnishing of adequate security.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12893 of 2021
Applicant :- Shiv Charan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahadeo Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The present case has been lodged only due to village party bandi. This case has been lodged only for the purpose of harassing the applicant. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of victim which is not supported the version of the F.I.R. There is no criminal history of applicant. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2021.
Learned counsel for opposite parties have vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Shiv Charan Yadav , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 03/2021, under Sections- 354A I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S.- Chilla, District- Banda, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 Sharad/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail may be granted in a case involving Sections 354A IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act given the prima facie satisfaction and larger mandate of Article 21.
Whether the allegations are based on ulterior motives and lack of criminal history justifying bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shiv Charan Yadav
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
