Allowed

Deepu Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022/9662/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the court observed no criminal history and recovery of incriminating photos. The court found it a fit case for granting bail with strict conditional bonds to prevent tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to avoid tampering, intimidation, and absence from court.

Deepu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9662 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Deepu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Shishir Pradhan,Vibhav Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2021 under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the First Information Report it is alleged that the applicant has clicked the photograph of the daughter of the complainant, who is aged about 17 years and was blackmailing her. No allegation of rape has been leveled by the complainant against the present applicant. However, later on, false case has been developed and allegation of rape has been leveled in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has also been alleged by the prosecutrix that her obscene photographs were taken by the applicant and were made viral. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is false. The allegation of making obscene photographs of the prosecutrix viral have not corroborated by any evidence. No photographs have been collected by the Investigating Officer. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that when her photographs have viral and her Khalu (mausa) Ahmad Hussain saw the photo, he told my mother. It is submitted that the statement of Khalu(mausa)

¶9

Ahmad Hussain, who have seen obscene photographs, have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The prosecutrix is 16 years and 8 months old at the time of incident as per the school record which is the age of discretion. As per the radiological examination she is 17 years of age. It is submitted that two years variation in the radiological age determination is possible and the applicant being accused is entitled to be given the benefit on the higher side in the view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 538, Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is in jail since 2.6.2021 without having any criminal history; chargesheet has been filed in the matter; no obscene photographs have been recovered by the Investigating Officer and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Deepu Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶17

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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.2.2022

¶22

Madhu

¶23

Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.02.15 16:59:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepu Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P.

M/S Kashish Enterprises Thru Prop Hameed Ullah Khan Vs State of U.P Thru Addl Chief Secy and Another

Shailendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Secy and Another

Kudru @ Amarnath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shiv Kumar @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rajjan Ali Nat Vs State of U.P. and Anr.