Allowed

Monis v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022/2510/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J. allowed bail to the applicant Monis in a POCSO case involving child enticement. The court considered the victim's contradictory statement, lack of criminal antecedent, and co-accused on bail fit circumstances for release on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with a personal bond, two heavy sureties, and strict conditions regarding witness interference and court attendance.

Monis Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2510 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Monis Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Tripathi,Onkar Singh,Rakesh Dwivedi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

From perusal of the record and ordersheet it is evident that vide order dated 14.3.2022 notice was issued to the respondent no.2 and that was served upon her on 4.4.2022, but none has put in appearance for her/opposite party no. 2. In this view, the court is proceeding in the matter.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0302 of 2021, under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. and section 7/8, POCSO Act, P.S.- Asiwan, District - Unnao.

¶9

As per prosecution version the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons are said to have enticed away the minor daughter of the first informant on 27.12.2021 at about 10 a.m.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. demolish the story of the prosecution, as she herself stated that she went with the present applicant of her own sweet-will. As per medical report age of the victim is 17 years and as such the applicant is claiming the benefit of two years' plus. He next added that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent which has been mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to substantiate the allegations made in the first information report. He further added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.12.2021 and he undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. He further stated that in identical situation, the co-accused Rohit alias Chaitoo has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2966 of 2022 vide order dated 25.4.2022.

¶11

Per contra , learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant is the main accused and the statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., even if contradictory to the prosecution version, will not help the present applicant and as such he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that as per the medical-report age of the victim is 17 years. Further, statement of the victim is totally in contradiction to the prosecution story; the applicant has no any criminal antecedent; and the co-accused Rohit alias Chaitoo has already been enlarged on bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.12.2021, thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Monis involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

( Shree Prakash Singh, J. )

¶21

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 A.Nigam

¶22

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.11.09 17:16:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monis v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monis v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

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

Mahesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Raju Verma @ Katte Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Babloo Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dabbu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.