Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022BAIL/27678/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Sonu accused of offence under Section 377 IPC and Section 5(D) of POCSO Act. High Court released him on bail via personal bond and sureties, imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non-tampering and court attendance.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27678 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Counter afÏdavit has already been filed by learned A.G.A. which is on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sonu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2015, under Sections 377 I.P.C. and Section 5 (D), 6 of POCSO Act , Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the bail application only on the ground that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2016. The trial has not been concluded till date. There is no one to look after his mother except him. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶13

evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.8.2022 KS

¶20

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.08.10 09:35:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gucchan Vs State of U.P.

Jhuman Shah Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Harisingh Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Raj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Monu Singh @ Shakti Singh @ Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P.