Allowed

Amit Bansal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022BAIL/24678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considered the trial pending for offences under S.O.P.O., IPC 377, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court allowed bail relying on discrepancies in the FIR, witness statements, and the child victim's cross-examination testimony.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence.

Amit Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24678 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kharag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kharag Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prateek Kumar, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Notice of the present bail application has been issued to the informant by means of an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by this Court. The office has reported that the notice has been served but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the informant to oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2022, under Section 377 IPC, Sections 5M, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. alleging that the applicant had committed unnatural sex with the informant's son aged about 8 years by putting penis inside his mouth. During investigation, the Police recorded the statement of several independent witnesses, all of whom stated that the informant's shop is a small one situated in a busy area and the entire shop is visible from the road and there is no person in the shop where one can hide. All of them have stated that the informant's son had come to the shop but no such incident took place. The Circle Officer inspected the shop and he has also recorded in the case diary that the entire shop is visible from the road. There is no place to hide in the shop and had any such occurrence taken place, some one must have seen it. The Investigating Officer has also recorded that at the time of giving statement the child was continuously looking towards his mother. He has recorded that the incident appears to be doubtful. There are several discrepancies in the F.I.R.

¶10

allegations and the statements of the informant, his wife and that of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The State has filed a counter affidavit stating that notice of the present application has been served upon the informant. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed annexing therewith a copy of the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court and during his cross-examination, he stated that the accused did not commit any wrong act with him.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2022.

¶14

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶15

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the statements of the independent witnesses recording during investigation, the observation of the Circle Officer made after inspection of the shop recorded in the case diary, the discrepancies in the F.I.R. version and the statements of the informant, his wife and the victim recorded during investigation, the statement given by the alleged victim during his cross-examination, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant Amit Bansal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2022, under Section 377 IPC, Sections 5M, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 Jaswant

¶25

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.18 17:45:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Bansal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Bansal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan @ Kali Baksh Singh Vs Union of India

Mohammad Jahas Vs Union Of India and 4 Others

Jajvinder Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P.