Allowed

Anmol v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021BAIL/6976/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the Single Bench held that a prima facie case was made out for bail despite the serious nature of offences. Bail was granted on execution of personal bond and stringent conditions arguing against abuse of process and ensuring trial completion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subsequent to normal functioning of courts with stringent conditions to prevent abuse of liberty.

Anmol Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6976 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anmol Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through virtual mode, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 1118 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Majhola, DistrictMoradabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the present FIR was got registered by Smt. Phool Jahan on 09.09.2020 for the incident said to have taken place on 07.09.2020 u/s 363 IPC against unknown person with the allegation that her minor daughter who is aged about 15 years has left the house on 07.09.2020 and her whereabouts is not known. It is further contended that the girl was left by the applicant on the Zero Point at Moradabad on 25.09.2020. The Court has perused the statements of the girl recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she states that she had studied up to class VIth and nurturing friendly and love affair with the applicant. She on her own joined the company of the applicant went to Hardoi where they have performed marriage in a temple thereafter went to Delhi, Nagloi and came back to Moradabad. In her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she states that both of them were resided as husband and wife after performance of marriage and on the similar lines her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is further contended that there is no injury over her external part of the body nor any injury over her private organs. It is further submitted that the as per the medical report she is aged about 18 years and she was in the company of the applicant about 18-20 days without any resistance or objection. Her conduct shows that she was in the consensual relationship with the applicant. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.09.2020 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶8

Learned AGA 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

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Anmol , 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN

¶16

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 THE HIM/HER 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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-:

¶21

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.

¶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

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.7.2021 Nisha

Anmol v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol 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

Shamshad @ Kaliya Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Yadav @ Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Shivsagar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.