Allowed

Naveen Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022/4564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding crimes under Section 354 IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court found the FIR version doubtful due to independent public witnesses corroborating a lockdown scenario, noting no cogent evidence connected the applicant and he had no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4564 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Naveen Patwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Pawan Kumar Sharma,Pradeep Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

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. 149 of 2020, under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. - Payagpur, District - Bahraich.

¶7

The counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that there is no cogent peace of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He further added that independent public eye-witness has stated that being the lock down all the shops were closed down and there was duty of police picket over there and as such there is no possibility of occurrence of such incident. He added that there are about six public witnesses who have reiterated the aforesaid. He next added that the allegations and incident are not too sober construed the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. He further added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 05.04.2022. He submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are specific allegations against the applicant in the first information report and the statement of the injured also supports the version of the first information report, and as such he is not entitled for any relief.

¶9

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it reveals that the story narrated in the first information report is doubtful to the some extent as there are as much as six independent public witnesses, who have asserted the same thing that being the lock down all the shops of the market were closed; there was duty of the police picket over there, as such, there cannot be possibility of occurrence of such offene; further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the there seems to be no other cogent peace of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter; further the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2022. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Naveen Patwa involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

¶11

each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 KR

¶19

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.25 10:21:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Naveen Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.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

Shamshul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Deepu Yadav @ Chhote Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Masook Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home Lucknow

Kallu @Shamshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home