Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2021BAIL/6299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant charged under 363, 376 IPC and POCSO, noting the victim's mother refused medical examination. Standard conditions were modified allowing release without initial sureties pending court reopening, emphasizing speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond without initial sureties; sureties to be furnished within one month; strict conditions regarding attendance and trial dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6299 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant 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.728 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act,, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Agra 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 mother of the victim against four named accused persons with the allegation that her minor daughter was enticed away by the applicant. I have perused the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement in which she has declined the factum of sexual assault upon her nor she has permitted her to be examined by the doctor internally. In the absence of her stand in not permitting for any medical examination and keeping in view her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the applicant is liable to be released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2020.

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

¶10

Let the applicant, Amit , 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.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE

¶12

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

¶21

month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.7.2021 Sumit S

Amit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Vs State of U.P.

Salman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P.