Allowed

Govind @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2022BAIL/11133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The court noted that the victim's age was re-determined as 18 years via ossification test despite FIR alleging 15 years. No criminal history for applicant was found. Bail granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including attendance and non-interference.

Govind @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11133 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Govind @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Learned AGA states that Child Welfare Committee as also the informant has been served on 22.03.2022 but none has appeared on their behalf.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and 16/17 & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

As per the FIR allegation the daughter of informant aged 15 years had gone to her coaching class but had not returned and later on it revealed that she has been enticed by the applicant Govind and has not been traced so far.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that though age of victim is alleged to be 15 years in FIR but in the ossification test her age has been determined to be 18 years. Attention of the court has been invited to the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. as per which she was in touch with the applicant for more than a year and used to commute in the Auto owned by the applicant and she had gone to meet him whereafter she has accompanied her to village of accused. The victim and accused applicant visited different places and then went to Delhi and thereafter Haryana. It is submitted that the victim had joined the company of applicant out of her own freewill and the lodgement of FIR is only on account of family pressure. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 24.11.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶11

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C.; and the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶12

Let the applicant - Govind @ Chhotu involved in aforesaid case 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, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.25 10:44:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Govind @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. 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

Mahmood Ali Alias Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P.

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Saifurheman @ Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) and 3 others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Javed Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P.