Allowed

Sokeen v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2021BAIL/38330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused charged with rape and offenses under the POCSO Act. The court was satisfied based on the nature of allegations, lack of direct evidence against the accused, and the victim's hostile turn in trial, directing speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail by personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including speedy trial within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38330 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sokeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey,Farid Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Farid Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.198 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.Behat, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; from perusal of statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape has been levelled against the applicant; during course of trial, victim turned hostile. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.06.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that there is allegation of rape against the applicant. Further submission is that as per statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that merely on the basis of annoyance, present F.I.R. has been lodged which is abuse of the process of court and victim/informant should be punished for lodging false F.I.R. against the applicant.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Sokeen , who is involved in the aforesaid 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, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

The trial court is directed to decide the trial of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Meenu

Sokeen v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sokeen 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.