Allowed

Manish v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022BAIL/29732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Manish in a trial under POCSO and IPC sections alleging molestation and threats, observing he had not tampered with witnesses and no chance of flight, subject to personal bond and strict conditions for court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence production.

Manish Vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29732 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Applicant :- Shikher Trivedi,Abhinab Mishra,Awadh Bihari Pandey,Pravina Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J .

¶5

Service upon the informant is sufficient as is evident from the record dated 21.10.2021.

¶6

Heard Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Manish with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2020, under Sections 354-D, 504, 506, 376 & section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Bahadurgarh, District-Hapur during pendency of trial.

¶8

As per F.I.R. lodged by mother of the victim on 25.01.2020 under sections 354-Gha, 504, 506 & 7/8 POCSO Act alleging that her 16 years old daughter (victim) was frequently molested by the applicant. On 25.01.2020 at about 10.00 O' Clock the victim was molested by the applicant on the way while she was coming from home and when she objected, the applicant used abusive language as well as threatened to kill her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that from the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that they are in friendly relationship with each other. Victim has stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she was called by the applicant at Kuti where the victim has gone, which goes to show that she was not forced by the applicant to go to that place, where she was requested, which goes to prove the consensual relationship between the two. Regarding false allegation of being sexually assaulted there is nothing on record to show that any video was made by the applicant and the variations of statements u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. also goes to prove the same. The victim has refused to get medically examined herself, which also falsify the entire story as narrated by the prosecution. The age of the victim is 16 years. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that informant has tried to give a criminal colour to the friendly relationship

¶10

between the applicant and victim, which is not the purpose of POCSO Act. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. There is no possibility of his fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2020 having no previous criminal history. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) 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

¶18

applicant are deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

O rder Date :- 1.12.2022 Vibha Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.12.06 16:42:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil @ Kunvar Sahab Vs State of U.P.

Jamuna Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sajal Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others