Allowed

Mandeep v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2021BAIL/20968/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by an accused charged under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court held that the victim appears to be a major girl who voluntarily joined the accused without resistance, thus manifesting a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail executing a personal bond without sureties initially, with conditions to file two sureties later and adhere to specific attendance obligations.

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20968 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Mandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Mrityunjay Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Shishir Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶5

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.375 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Nandganj, District- Ghazipur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶6

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that present F.I.R. was got registered by one Durga Devi on 21.12.2020 under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. against Mandeep and Kishan with the allegation that informant's two daughters Neetu and Rukhsana went to attend the call of nature in the morning and since then Mandeep and Kishan were also missing. She suspected that it is possible that these two boys might have enticed away the two girls. After the recovery of the girl her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 8.2.2021 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application), which shows that she is illiterate girl and has not received any formal education. She confessed that she has affair with the applicant for the last two years. She further revels that on 20.12.2020 around six in the morning she on her own free will and accord joined the company of the applicant and went to Kanpur, where both of them have resided like husband and wife. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded (Annexure -3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application) in which she has broadly reiterated her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to her radiological report, which has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and as per her ossification test report her age appears to be 15-16 years giving margin of two years either way or other she seems to be a major girl, who herself states that she on her volition and accord joined company of the applicant and went to Kanpur, where she stayed with the applicant like a wedded couple for

¶7

more than one month without any resistance or objection. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.02.2021.

¶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

Taking in view the present facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant it appears that the victim appears to be a major girl and has joined company of her own volition and accord.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Mandeep, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

¶15

HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶18

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

¶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/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are 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 :- 12.7.2021 / Anuj Singh

Mandeep v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep 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

Kapoor Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar @ Pavva Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Abu Salim Vs State of U.P.

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.

Ikram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another