Allowed

Abdullah v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2022BAIL/19294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to Abdullah, an applicant falsely implicated in a case involving sexual offences against a minor. The court referenced overcrowding concerns during the pandemic and the principle that bail is a fundamental right in cases of questionable malice.

What did the court decide?

Order: Released on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance in court and not seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19294 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Abdullah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Siddharth Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and malafide intention. It is next contended that as per statement of victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly admitted that she has love and affection with the applicant and she went with applicant on her own sweet will, a copy of statement of victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been annexed as Annexure No. 6 and 7 respectively to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that as per x-ray report victim is aged about 17 years. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.09.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Abdullah be released on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2021,

¶11

under Sections- 376, 363, 366 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Kolhui, District- Maharajganj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

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

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.10.2022 Arti

¶21

Digitally signed by ARTI SHARMA Date: 2022.10.14 11:13:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdullah v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullah 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

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surekha Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ramkali Vs State of U.P.

Abu Salim Vs State of U.P.

Omprakash Vs State of U.P.

Ragini Vs State of U.P.