Allowed

Gulfam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2021BAIL/17430/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Allahabad granted bail to the applicant along with specified conditions regarding attendance at trial and filing undertakings. The court noted that while co-accused had been granted bail, the current decision is based on a fit case assessment without adjudicating the merits of complicity.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance, no adjournment during evidence, and proceedings under Sections 174-A IPC and 229-A IPC upon default.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17430 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gulfam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava 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 during the trial in Case Crime No.-592 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 307, 354 Kha, 380, 427, 325 IPC and 7/8 of the POCSO Act at Police Station- New Agra, District -Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on false facts. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Fareed Khan, Pankhi Diwakar @ Pankaj, Farman @ Mota, Chhotu @ Kachhiya @ Sonu Agrawal, Imran @ Bholu and Sheru have been already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2019, 3.1.2020, 17.1.2020, 16.4.2020, 23.7.2020 and 23.6.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.48750 of 2019, 57915 of 2019, 1714 of 2020, 4210 of 2020, 6295 of 2020 and 16497 of 2020. 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 6.2.2021.

¶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-Gulfam, 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,

¶11

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 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

¶19

witnesses.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.6.2021

¶24

Anuj Singh

Gulfam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam 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

Adal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Hani Tyagi @ Priyank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Alias Deepanshu Vs State of U.P.