Allowed

Bharat Dwivedi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022BAIL/18901/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an accused charged with kidnapping, abduction, and offences under the POCSO Act. The court found that a prima facie case for bail was based on arguments of innocence, lack of specific evidence against the applicant, and detention period, granting bail subject to several conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and undertaking not to seek adjournments or misuse liberty.

Bharat Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18901 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bharat Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Redhar, District - Jalaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The FIR was lodged against present accused Bharat and other co-accused Pushkar on for the incident of disappearance of the complainant's daughter, which took place in night of 29.6.2020. Later on, it was found that the present accused along with co-accused had enticed away the minor daughter of the complainant.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the present applicant as well as co-accused Pushkar were arrested and the girl was not found in the company of these persons and the FIR was lodged against these persons illegally without any evidence. It is next submitted that during investigation it has revealed that the alleged victim was enticed away by other accused persons namely Hari Om and Raj Kumar and no prosecution witness has said specifically that present accused had enticed away or the alleged victim was seen in the company of the present accused. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 13.12.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. But he does not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the ground of bail parity of the applicant with co-accused and considering the period of detention of the applicant and considering all other attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Bharat Dwivedi involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

¶14

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;

¶15

(2). 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;

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.7.2022 LBY

¶19

Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.07.17 14:46:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharat Dwivedi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Dwivedi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Newas Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Subhash Chand Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Singh @ Mantu Vs State of U.P.

Manik Tandon Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar @ Lalit @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.