Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022/4466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Cr.M. No. 4466 of 2022, the Hon'ble Court granted bail to the applicant, Majeed, accused of sexual offences including Section 354 IPC and POCSO Act violations. The Court noted lack of independent witnesses and reliance on victim's statement since demolished prosecution story. Bail granted with strict conditions regarding court appearance and evidence tampering, without

What did the court decide?

Bail granted bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding presence in court, non-tampering with evidence, and specific appearances for case opening, framing of charge

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

¶1

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4466 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Majeed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bahar Ali,Rajneesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bishwa Nath Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 73 of 2022, under Sections 354Kha IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)W(i) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maanpur, District Sitapur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. He next added that the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. herself demolishes the prosecution story. He submits that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid incident and due to enmity instant first information report has been lodged. He has drawn attention towards page 18 of the bail application i.e. statement of victim, itself is evident that there was dispute with regard to certain boundary wall of land and certain quarrel was done over there and thus instant FIR was lodged. He also added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been mentioned in para 10 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 14.03.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegation against the present applicant and the applicant has outraged the modesty of the victim and victim is minor girl as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid incident; further victim herself demolishes the prosecution story and further there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 14.03.2022.

¶9

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Majeed involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

(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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶18

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.17 10:23:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majeed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Yadav @ Nirmal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinodanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Princ Secy. Cikvil Sectt. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy. Home Lko.

Vandana Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.