Allowed

Prashant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021BAIL/14946/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant accused of sexual assaults under IPC and POCSO, noting inconsistencies in the prosecutorial case and lack of medical examination by the victim. Bail was granted on a personal bond until courts resumed normal functioning, subject to strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond without sureties until courts resume normal functioning, subject to strict attendance conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14946 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through virtual mode as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.523 of 2020, under Sections 354A, 354B, 376D, 506 IPC and Section 5/6/7/8 of POCSO Act, Police StationIndirapuram, District-Ghaziabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by Prashant Kumar, father of the victim under section 354Ka, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act against four named accused persons. The age of the girl is 14 years and she is the student of class VIIIth. The allegation of sexual assault is upon Varun. There is no allegation of rape attributed to the applicant. On the similar lines, her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was also recorded in which she has declined to get her medically examined so as to ascertain the factum of sexual assault upon her. It is next contended that after three months of the incident, in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement she changed the textures of the prosecution case upside down by attributing general role of rape upon her by all the four named accused persons. It is maritime shift from the story mentioned in the FIR and after three months in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the girl. This fact attains significance when she herself has declined to medically examined. There is nothing on record to establish the age of the girl on the date of incident. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the allegation of false implication cannot be ruled out. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the

¶10

parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Prashant , who is involved in the aforesaid case 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

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.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.7.2021 Sumit S

Prashant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad @ Kaliya Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Yadav @ Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Shivsagar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.