Allowed

Farukh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022ABAIL/2777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a POCSO and IPC case. The court held that grounds for bail were made out, directing the respondent to release the applicant against two sureties and a personal bond on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount till conclusion of trial.

Farukh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2777 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Farukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Farukh in Case Crime No. 235 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2021), under Sections 452, 354-Kha, 504, 506, IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Pilibhit after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit vide order dated 2.3.2022.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged by the mother of the victim against the applicant and two wives of the applicant alleging that on 21.5.2020 at 2.00 p.m. when her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, was sitting in her grocery shop, applicant caught hold her minor daughter and molested her. On her crying she reached there and the applicant fled away at his house. After that she went to the house of the applicant for making complaint, then his two wives namely Smt. Minakshi and Smt. Shahnaz abused her by using filthy language. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after 43 days of the incident. It is further argued that in the month of 2020, some hot talk took place between the applicant and first informant over the drainage issue. First informant was neighbour of the present applicant and at that time first informant threatened the applicant to implicate him in a false case. It is further submitted

¶8

that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court till the submission of charge sheet vide order dated 1.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8315 of 2020. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted in the present matter.

¶9

The applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 22.04.2022.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, however, nothing adverse has been pointed out against the applicant.

¶11

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3), Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶12

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

In case of arrest, the applicant Farukh is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till

¶15

the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶17

(ii) 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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶19

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

¶20

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶22

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicant, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Ishan

¶25

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.07 17:03:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farukh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sonu Yadav @ Arun Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P and Another

Bhudev Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Chand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Umar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another