Allowed

Mohammad Umar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022BAIL/1704/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Mohammad Umar @ Sonu and Najim in charges related to molestation, obscenity, and POCSO violations. The court noted an unexplained delay in FIR and lack of video evidence, finding the applicants had made out a case for bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and committing further offences.

Mohammad Umar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1704 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Umar @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Karmendra Kumar,Amit Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mumtaz Ali

¶4

and

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42572 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Najim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh,Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mumtaz Ali

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case applicants have been falsely implicated. Incident is said to have taken place on 17.01.2021 and F.I.R. was lodged on 26.01.2022 after delay of ten days' without any reasonable explanation thereto. There is an allegation of molestation against the applicants. It is also submitted that applicants have made obscene video of the informant but the same is not on record. There is no criminal history of the applicants. Applicant, Mohammad Umar @ Sonu and Najim are languishing in jail since 10.11.2021 and 11.09.2021, respectively, and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants- Mohammad Umar @ Sonu and Najim, involved in Case Crime No.66 of 2021, under Section-341, 354B, 506 I.P.C. and 67 of I.T. Act, 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

The applicants 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.3.2022 Sachin/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SACHIN TIWARI Date: 2022.03.10 12:37:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Umar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Umar @ Sonu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shama @ Sheetal Vs State of U.P.

Tejbahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Afzal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Yogesh @ Furri Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow