Allowed

Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022BAIL/26585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court No. 79 allowed a bail application filed by the applicant in a case concerning the alleged enticement of a minor under IPC and POCSO. The court was satisfied that no additional material exists beyond a co-accused's statement and ordered the applicant's release subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Hariom Sharma released on bail in Crime No. 56 of 2020 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26585 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Hariom Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Siddharth Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Pulkit Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Siddharth Singh, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶5

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Redhar, District Jalaun during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶6

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.07.2020 against two named accused persons (1) Bharat and (2) Pushkar alleging that the informant's daughter aged about 17 years had gone missing from her home on 29.06.2020. The F.I.R. expressed an apprehension that the name accused persons had enticed her away.

¶7

During investigation, the Police recorded statement of one Nilesh who stated that the applicant had brought the informant's daughter to him on 01.07.2020 for getting her married to the aforesaid witness. The witness inquired about the Aadhar card of the girl but the same was not available, and, therefore, he declined to marry the girl. Thereupon, the applicant had taken her away. The aforesaid statement was recorded on 12.12.2020. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the applicant was arrested and he is languishing in jail since then.

¶8

The State has filed an affidavit of the Investigating Officer who has stated that inspite of every effort having been made, the girl could not be recovered.

¶9

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.

¶10

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate as

¶11

well as the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, what prima facie appears at this stage is that besides the statement of one of the co-accused persons recorded on 12.12.2020 i.e. after about six months since the date of the incident, there is no other material supporting the implication of the applicant for the offence alleged, although, the applicant is in custody since 12.12.2020. Therefore, I am of the view that the continuous incarceration of the applicant without conclusion of the trial for almost about two years does not serve the interest of justice.

¶13

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant Hariom Sharma be released on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Redhar, District Jalaun 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 Jaswant

¶22

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.21 13:31:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Sharma 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

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sarswat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Rai Vs State of U.P.