Allowed

Humair v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2022/2868/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a POCSO case, the High Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out considering the accused's lack of antecedents, non-inclusion in the F.I.R./statement, and the liberty granted to a co-accused. The application was allowed subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Humair released on bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions of presence in court and not leaving the country.

Humair Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2868 of 2022 Applicant :- Humair Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narain,Triloki Nath Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶4

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.12.2021 in Case Crime No. 695 of 2021, under Sections-363, 376-D (A) IPC read with Section 5 (g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Bijnour, DistrictLucknow.

¶5

This Court has passed the order dated 18.05.2022 as under:-

¶6

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶7

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit, if he so desires.

¶9

As per office report dated 18.04.2022, notice has been served upon opposite party no.4 but no one has put in appearance. This is a case wherein besides Section 376-D (A) IPC, Section 5 (g)/6 of POCSO Act is involved and ample opportunity from the side of the prosecutrix would be necessary.

¶10

Therefore, list again on 30.05.2022 to enable the S.H.O./I.O., Police Station - Bijnour, District Lucknow to apprise opposite party no.4 regarding the date fixed so that the bail application could be disposed of finally on the next date as learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this bail application seeking parity.

¶11

Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the S.H.O./I.O., Police Station - Bijnour, District Lucknow through FAX/ e-mail or any other convenient mode within 24 hours for its compliance and he shall inform on the next date as to whether this order has been apprised to the opposite party no.4 or not."

¶12

In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned Additional Government Advocate has shown letter dated 19.05.2022 sent through Fax on 21.05.2022 to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow as well as S.H.O./I.O. Police Station-Bijnour, District-Lucknow regarding compliance of order dated 18.05.2022, but as per learned Additional Government Advocate no compliance report has yet been received from the S.H.O./I.O. concerned.

¶13

Since the learned Additional Government Advocate has informed the order of this Court to the authorities through Fax on 21.05.2022 so the S.H.O. should inform the Court but nothing has been informed so the

¶14

Commissioner of Police, Lucknow shall seek explanation from S.H.O./I.O. to this effect.

¶15

Learned Additional Government Advocate shall intimate this order to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow within three days through fax/ e.mail/ or any other convenient mode.

¶16

Since this is a case of parity so it is being heard on merits.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 29.12.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent; applicant was neither named in First Information Report nor in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix; the specific allegation of rape has been levelled against the co-accused Sanjay Pasi, who is named in the F.I.R.; no identification parade was there; identity was never fixed; he was apprehended on the basis of information given by the informer but, what was the basis of this information is not there at all; no scientific evidence is there; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; hence bail has been prayed for.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in this case the co-accused, Ravi, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3174 of 2022. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not oppose this fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent; and his name is neither in the First Information Report nor in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., of prosecutrix.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the material placed on record and considering the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction as well as the fact that the co-accused, Ravi, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 but without commenting on the merits of the case, a case for bail is made out, accordingly allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant-Humair, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) 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. 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.

¶24

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(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. is issued and the applicant fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iv) 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. 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.

¶27

(v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶28

Order Date :- 30.5.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶29

Digitally signed by SURESH CHANDRA Date: 2022.06.02 14:08:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Humair v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Humair v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

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

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ravi Pratap S/O Raj Kumar (Short Term Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shiv Prakash Alias Gadde Vs State of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Shiv Bahadur Fourth Bail Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Alias Lala S/O Madhav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home