Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 May 2022/333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail application of KM. Soni in a POCSO and IPC case. Granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties. Conditions: appearance, interrogation, non-leave of India, non-intimidation of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 333 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Km.Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey,Ghanshyam Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC and Sections 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Kohdaur, District- Pratapgarh, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the minor daughter of the Informant is said to have been enticed away by co-accused Sujeet Singh and Arpit Singh on 7.5.2020 at 01:00 AM.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no role assigned to the applicant. It has been stated in the FIR that the Informant has apprehension that the co-accused persons along with the applicant might cause the death of his minor daughter. No role has been assigned to the applicant of getting the victim kidnapped. Learned counsel has further stated that as per radiological report of the victim, her age is 18 years. The victim was recovered and had come back home and after about six months, she has again eloped with Sujeet Singh and then again an FIR of similar kind has been lodged by the Informant against the accused persons including the applicant. Investigation in that case is going-on and an order has been passed staying the arrest of the applicant. The applicant who is a lady, is not a previous convict. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed. In case, her anticipatory bail application is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate in trial.

¶9

On the other hand, Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. has

¶10

vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is a lady and has no other criminal antecedents except the two FIRs lodged by the present Informant.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Km.Soni , be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

that 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶16

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; and

¶18

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.05.25 10:34:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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.