Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2022BAIL/2696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application for an applicant charged under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court found merit in the applicant's surrender regarding lack of criminal history and accepted submissions without observing on merits, ordering release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2696 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2021 at Police Station Magorra District Mathura under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 09.06.2021. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Mathura on 10.11.2021.

¶7

Shri Awadh Vihari Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been

¶8

falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 15 years. The victim is infact 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 applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is a result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant and the two stayed together at Faridabad in a rented accommodation. Subsequently, she got married to the applicant voluntarily and since then they were residing together as a couple. No allegation of abduction, rape or forceful assault has been made against the applicant by the victim in her statement. No medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made 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

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid

¶10

submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant- Sandeep 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on 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 :- 6.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶20

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.11 13:58:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Shantiswaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Kamil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bachchu Singh Vs State of U.P.