Allowed

Mohd Saif (Second Bail ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC31 May 2022/1461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under SC/ST Act and POCSO. Ruling based on nature of offence, lack of criminal history, and larger mandate of Article 21, while clarifying that observations do not affect the trial court's independent opinion.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments and remain present for trial.

Mohd Saif (Second Bail ) Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1461 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Saif (Second Bail ) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Samad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0437 of 2020, U/S 336, 366 IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act and 11(6)/12 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have enticed away the minor daughter of the first informant on 20.8.2020 at about 10.30 am.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the victim is the consenting party and is major being more than 18 years of age. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the medical report, which suggests that age of the victim is more than 18 years. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also indicates that her age is 19 years and she had gone out of her own sweet will and has married him. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.8.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

¶11

another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Mohd. Saif , who is involved in aforementioned 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.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶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

Order Date :- 31.5.2022 Shalini

¶20

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.01 17:43:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd Saif (Second Bail ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Saif (Second Bail ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

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

Sunil Kumar alias Lalla Vs State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department

Deepak Yadava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Amit Pandey @ Pintu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ameerchand Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramveer Singh Vs State of Up Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Saroj Giri and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.