Allowed

Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2022BAIL/14829/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar in an FIR alleging sending of a daughter's photograph to cancel marriage proposals. Bail allowed due to absence of obscene allegations and non-cooperative informant response, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, influencing witnesses, and inducing persons to dissuade disclosure of facts.

Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14829 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav, Satyendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shahroze Khan,Vijit Saxena

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.288 of 2021, under Section 354-D IPC, Section 11/12, 13/14 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 66E, 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 19.12.2021 lodged by the informant against four named persons including the applicant alleging that the applicant has clicked a photograph of his daughter and whenever the informant approaches someone with a proposal of marriage of his daughter, the applicant sends a message through mobile phone due to which the engagement of his daughter is cancelled.

¶8

4.In the statement of the informant recorded on 19.12.2021, he has reiterated the FIR allegations and in the statement of the informant's daughter recorded on 05.01.2022, in which she has stated that her age is 16 years and that her father is trying to get her married, the applicant sends her photograph and gets the marriage proposal cancelled.

¶9

5.A notice dated 18.01.2022 issued by the Inspector In-charge to the informant requiring him to furnish details of the person with whom he had settled the marriage of his daughter and to furnish the mobile number on which applicant has sent the photograph and message.

¶10

6.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that till date the informant has not given any information in response to

¶11

the aforesaid notice.

¶12

7.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the prosecution story is fabricated. It has been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history. The affidavit further contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not will not tamper with any evidence and he will attend the trial court on the date fixed in the case.

¶13

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no material on record to substantiate the allegation levelled in the FIR and the conduct of the informant in not responding to the notice sent by the Inspector and not disclosing the mobile number on which the photograph has already been sent, indicates that the FIR allegation is not correct.

¶14

9.The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.02.2022.

¶15

10.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶16

11.Keeping in view the facts that the F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of the alleged photograph being obscene or objectionable and that the informant has not sent any reply to the notice dated 18.01.2022 sent by the Inspection-in-charge asking for certain particulars in respect of the allegations, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶17

12.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

13.Let the applicant Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No.288 of 2021, under Section 354-D IPC, Section 11/12, 13/14 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 66-E, 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date

¶22

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

14.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶26

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.05 19:13:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Madan @ Madan Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dodraj Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Aadesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nivas Kumar Vs State of U.P.