Allowed

Sahid@ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Anohter

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022BAIL/10132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an accused applicant falsely implicated in an offence under POCSO and IPC sections. The court noted the applicant played only a minor role of photographing compared to the main accused, who was already granted bail by a coordinate bench. The applicant was released on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and further criminal activity.

Sahid@ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Anohter — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10132 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sahid@ Sahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anohter Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Bhavya Sahai,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Case called out.

¶6

Perusal of the record reveals that notice issued to the opposite party no. 2 has been served earlier, however, no one is present on behalf of the informant / opposite party.

¶7

Heard Shri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sahid@ Sahil for grant of bail, in Case Crime 709 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376/511 IPC and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that only because of his association with the main accused of the alleged crime, namely Juber his name has been dragged in this case and he has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that first information report of the alleged incident has been lodged with the instrumentality of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and all story as narrated in the first information report has been drafted with the help of an Advocate and even if the case of the prosecution as is evident from the first information report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is taken on its face the role of only clicking photographs has been assigned to the instant applicant while the role of assaulting and making attempt to rape the prosecutrix has been attributed to the main accused Juber.

¶10

It is next submitted that the applicant is not having any previous history and co-accused person, Juber to whom graver role in commission of crime has been assigned has been granted bail

¶11

by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 9762 of 2021.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 6.1.2021. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that the accusedapplicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence but could not confront the factual submission made on behalf of the applicant.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The main accused of the alleged crime is co-accused Juber to whom all the allegations have been levelled in the first information report as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The role of the instant applicant is of only clicking photographs at the instance of the main co-accused Juber. The main accused of the crime i.e. Juber has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 9762 of 2021. Applicant is also not having criminal antecedents.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant - Sahid@ Sahil involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

¶20

commission of any crime after being released on bail and breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Arif

¶24

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.04.19 09:52:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahid@ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Anohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahid@ Sahil v. State of U.P. and Anohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Darshan Lal Vs State of U.P.

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.

Devi Singh Vs State of Up.