Allowed

Hasnain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jun 2021BAIL/9521/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application where the applicant, charged under sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO Act, was sought to be released. The court found merit in submissions that the applicant is a major and the victim accused another person, allowing bail on a personal bond and two sureties due to jail overcrowding and lack of tampering risk.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Hasnain Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9521 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Hasnain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudarshan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.0086 of 2020 at Police Station- Visharatganj, District-Bareilly on 28.5.2020, under Sections 363, 366 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 17.12.2020.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 20.10.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant is a major. He relies on the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. After the report was submitted by duly constituted medical board. The alleged victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated before the Investigating Officer that the applicant did not force himself upon her nor engaged her in any inappropriate act. She has good relations with the applicant. The applicant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Magistrate on 29.6.2020 specifically named one Naseem Khan as the accused person who had forcefully made inappropriate physical contact and groped her in a lustful manner. Subsequent

¶10

to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer as a matter of precaution recorded a fresh statement of the victim. The victim reiterated the earlier statement given before the Investigating Officer that the applicant did not commit any inappropriate act with her. She also claimed that she has sweet feelings for the applicant Hasnain and accompanied him to Bareilly on her own free will and consent. The applicant does not have criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A and Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for complainant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jail during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Hasnain involved in Case Crime No.86 of 2020 at Police Station- Visharatganj District-Bareilly under Sections 363, 376(2)N and 5/6 POCSO Act be released on bail

¶16

on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence the prosecution witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 28.6.2021 Anil K. Sharma

Hasnain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasnain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Vs State of U.P.

Mubarik @ Kaka Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Srivastava (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Rambabu Yadav @ Bhura Vs State of U.P.

Munna Vs State of U.P.