Allowed

Kapil v. State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) And 3 others

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022BAIL/19562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC 328, 363, 366, 376(3) and POCSO Acts. Despite the gravity of charges, the Court found it a fit case for bail while imposing strict undertakings for trial attendance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed for release on bail subject to personal bond, two heavy sureties, and undertakings regarding trial attendance and no abuse of liberty.

Kapil Vs State of U.P. though Principal… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19562 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though Principal Secretary (Home) And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar,Adesh Kumar,Anjali Singh Tomer,Inder Pal Singh Tomar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 32 of 2022, under Section 328, 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and Section 3, 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Adarsh Mandi Shamli, District Shamli.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per the impugned FIR, the incident took place on 21.02.2022. The allegation is that the applicant used to come to the house of informant and he has provide a mobile to the sister of the informant without knowledge of her family. He eloped the sister of the informant in the night of 21.02.2021 after getting drugs to all the family members. The age of the victim was about 16 years as per her statement. As per medical report, there is no internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim. The statement of the victim recorded as P.W. 2, in which she has not supported the prosecution version. 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 have 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. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2023 having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned

¶10

counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Kapil involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

¶20

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 v.k.updh.

¶22

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY Date: 2022.12.23 17:20:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil v. State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) And 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil v. State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) 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

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Ruksad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Alias Dhandu Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P. 3 Ohters

Mahip Singh Vs State of U.P.