Allowed

Omkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/14697/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge ordered bail for Omkar in a PoCSO case pending trial. The court noted the FIR was lodged against an unknown person initially, the applicant had no criminal history, and no specific apprehension was established regarding tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions including no tampering with evidence and sincere cooperation in trial.

Omkar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14697 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Omkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh,Kunwar Abhishek,Manish Yadav,Rahul Dwivedi,Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today. Taken on record.

¶6

Heard Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Omkar , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 139 of 2020, under Sections - 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Ayana, District - Auraiya , during pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) against FIR lodged on 02.09.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 06.02.2021;

¶10

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶11

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(iv) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR against unknown person was lodged six months after the occurrence and one day after the recovery of the victim girl. Neither in the FIR nor in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim named the present applicant who is a relative. Seven days thereafter, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the allegation was made against the applicant without any further details as to the place and date of the occurrence. Later, the victim claims to have married one Yogendra Singh @ Ajay @ Ravindra against whom similar allegations were made. He has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23434 of 2021, vide order dated 09.08.2021;

¶14

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 Abhilash

Omkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansingh Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotkali @ Khusbuddin Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kiran @ Neeraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another