Allowed

Ummed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022BAIL/19629/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the bail prayer for the applicant accused of multiple offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act. The court found merit in the counsel's submissions, primarily centering on the dispute regarding the victim's age and allegations of consensuality, without making observations on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; release on bail is ordered by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Ummed Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19629 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ummed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.447 of 2021 at Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar on 27.04.2022.

¶7

Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 16 years. The victim is in fact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case. The victim and the applicant

¶8

were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by their family members. The FIR is the result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C had admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She had further asserted that the victim accompanied the applicant to various places including Bareilly and Kurukshetra. The applicant helped the victim to secure a job in a plastic factory at Kurukshetra. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. No medical evidence to establish any rape or forceful assault against the applicant has been produced. Aggravated and false allegations have been made under the POCSO Act at the instance of the parents of the victim only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

¶12

making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant-Ummed be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.25 17:50:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ummed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Ujaif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikash @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Singh @ Dev Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others