Allowed

Chhunnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 May 2022/15105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application, the Court allowed the plea amidst allegations of false implication under POCSO and other statutes. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court dictum regarding the larger mandate of Article 21. Conditions for bail were framed including periodic attendance and prohibitions on adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of attendance and no misuse of liberty.

Chhunnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15105 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Chhunnu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Case called out. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2, though, a notice sent to him was served personally as per the office report dated 3.2.2022. Service is deemed sufficient.

¶7

Heard Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

By means of the present application, the applicant- Chhunnu Singh, seeks bail in Case Crime No.269 of 2021, under Sections 377, 504 IPC and Sections 5m/6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(V) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Lonar, District- Hardoi, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed sodomy with the son of the Informant in the agricultural field on 13.5.2021 at about 06:00 PM.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of said delay. There is no injury observed by the doctor on the body of the victim. The statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is self contradictory in which victim has stated that he does not know the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.8.2021 and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, Dr. Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. has vehemently

¶12

opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

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 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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Chhunnu Singh, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

¶21

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Siddhant

¶23

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.05.25 10:34:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhunnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhunnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pappu @ Nabi Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Km.Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohit Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Bholu @ Mohd Owais Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.