Allowed

Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2022BAIL/21216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui in a POCSO case. The court held that the applicant, having no prior criminal history and with a recent bail order not perturbed, was entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21216 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Mishra 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. 359 of 2021 under Sections 5M/6 of POCSO Act at Police Station Nichlaul District Maharajganj. The applicant is in jail since 07.10.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge(POCSO Act), Maharajganj on 22.04.2022.

¶7

Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was earlier enlarged on bail under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, by this Court by order dated 25.03.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2975 of 2022. This bail application is necessitated by the addition of another section namely Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act in the investigation. The bail cancellation application filed by the informant has been rejected by this Court by order dated 23.05.2022. For the reasons stated in the said order of this Court dated 25.03.2022,

¶8

the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in this case as well. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history prior to the instant case.

¶9

Shri I. P. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and Shri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history prior to the instant case.

¶10

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

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant -Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on

¶16

the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 30.5.2022 Dhananjai

¶20

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.06.01 10:11:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitu @ Gulab Haider Siddiqui 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

Mohan Yadav Vs Union of India

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Haseen @ Yaseen Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Kanchan Devi Vs State of U.P.