Allowed

Saurabh @ Baluwa v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022BAIL/16482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving unnatural offence under IPC and POCSO Act. The court relied on medical report and lack of criminal history despite arguments by the A.G.A. Bail granted on furnishing bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties and complying with specific conditions.

Saurabh @ Baluwa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16482 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh @ Baluwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

As per report of the incharge C.J.M. Aligarh notice on opposite party no.2 has been served.No one appears on his behalf.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Saurabh @ Baluwa, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under Sections 377,342 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Gaunda, District- Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation of commission of unnatural offence against the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that medical report does not supports the prosecution case.The opinion of the doctor is innegative. The applicant is in jail since 13.9.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, 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 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the

¶11

applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and

¶19

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 15.7.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.15 18:28:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh @ Baluwa v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh @ Baluwa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar Yadav Vs State Of U. P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department

Nutan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Shera @ Sahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.