Bail application allowed for applicant Neeraj Singh in POCSO and IPC case. Court discharged him on personal bond and two sureties after referring to prior precedents. Standard bail conditions imposed including evidence tampering prohibition.
Released on bail with execution of personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6918 of 2021
Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav,Randhir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Singh Sengar
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant through video conferencing. Learned A.G.A. is present in the Court.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Singh in connection with Case Crime No.39 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 323, 506, 342, 120B I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Pakari, district Ballia.
The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant in pursuance of the application given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. about the enticement of his sister by the five named accused persons including the applicant. It was alleged in the first information report that on 29.05.2018 when the sister of the complainant had gone to see her Intermediate result and had not returned back home then they searched her. It was further alleged in the first information report that on 06.06.2018 a gumshudgi report was also lodged. It was also alleged in the first information report that the victim had returned to her house on 30.06.2018. It was further alleged in the first information report that the applicant and one another Indrajeet Singh met with the alleged victim and said that they are also going to the village and had kidnapped the sister of the complainant. It was also alleged that when the sister of the complainant sat in the vehicle of the applicant she was given some intoxicating substance and she fell unconscious. Thereafter she was taken to the various places and she was raped.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the alleged victim had married with Shubham Singh out of her own sweet will, copy of the marriage certificate has been annexed at page no.32 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application. He submitted that the alleged victim was in consensual relations with the co-accused Shubham Singh. He submitted that as per medical the alleged victim is 18 years of age. He further submitted that the alleged victim had eloped with Shubham Singh and lived with Shubham Singh for more than one month at various places and the alleged victim has not raised alarm anywhere during her forceful captivity. He submitted that the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in this case just because he is the friend of Shubham Singh. He submitted that the applicant is serving in the armed forces. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2021, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed
the bail plea.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 , but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Neeraj Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
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.
Order Date :- 25.6.2021 R./
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is fit to be released on bail before the trial court in a case under POCSO Act and I.P.C. Sections 363, 366, 376D.
Whether to grant bail subject to conditions including personal bond and sureties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶11
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 · Who else cites this
Neeraj Singh
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
