Allowed

Subham @ Shivam Teotia v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022BAIL/16313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J. allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application regarding charges under IPC and POCSO Act. The court observed defects in prosecution evidence and lack of criminal history, granting bail subject to strict conditions regarding court appearance and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and regular court appearance.

Subham @ Shivam Teotia Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16313 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Subham @ Shivam Teotia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

As per office report dated 12.07.2022, notice has been personally served on opposite party no. 2 but no one has put in appearance.

¶7

The applicant was implicated for offence under Section 377 IPC.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the medical report of the injured does not supports the prosecution case and even statement of the informant recorded before the court below as P.W-1 also does not supports the prosecution case at all. He has denied the incident and has been declared hostile. The applicant is in jail since 26.12.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Subham @ Shivam Teotia, involved in Case Crime No. 769 of 2021, under Sections- 377, 341, 506 IPC and Section 5(M)/6 POCSO Act, 2012 and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Gulaothi, District- Bulandshahar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶12

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.02 16:33:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subham @ Shivam Teotia v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham @ Shivam Teotia 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahish Vs State of Up.

Naeem @ Nanhae @ Danna Vs State of U.P.

Savez Vs State of U.P.

Raja Vs State of U.P.

Jaiteenjaya Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Vs Union of India