Allowed

Mohd. Wasim @Bhura v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022BAIL/309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of crimes under IPC and PoCSO Act. The grant was based on parity with other co-accused who were already released and the applicant's lack of criminal history, without evaluating the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions not to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or appear in court as fixed.

Mohd. Wasim @Bhura Vs State of U.P. through… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 309 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Wasim @Bhura Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1.Heard Sri Sandeep Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vikas Sharma, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 452, 395, 377, 506 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶8

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 28.09.2021 and thereafter a first information report dated 08.10.2021 lodged against five named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that on 23.08.2021 they had sodomized the informant's minor son and that they had taken away Rs. 5,00,000/-, a gold chain weighing about 20 gm. and a pair of silver anklets and they had videographed the incident. The FIR further alleges that the applicant extracted Rs. 50,000/- each time on three more occasions from the informant's son. On 01.09.2021, when the informant checked her almirah, she found that Rs. 6.5 lacs and the jewellery was missing.

¶9

4.In the medico legal examination report of the alleged victim, no injury has been found on his person.

¶10

5.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was a dispute regarding drainage between the applicant and the first informant. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

6.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all

¶12

the other named co-accused persons namely Aamir @ Polla, Bhura @ Imran and Shahtab have already been granted bail by this Court by means of the orders dated 12.04.2022 and 01.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application/s No. 5886 of 2022, 6861 of 2022 and 5327 of 2022 respectively.

¶13

7.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR of the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 23.08.2021, has been lodged on 08.10.2021 even when as per the FIR allegations, the applicant had come to know about the incident on 01.09.2021.

¶14

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶15

9.The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.10.2021.

¶16

10.Per contra, the learned for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail.

¶17

11.Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions particularly the fact fact that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail and that the applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is also liable to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶18

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

¶19

13.Let the applicant - Mohd. Wasim @Bhura be released on bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 452, 395, 377, 506 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

14.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.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶26

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.23 17:33:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Wasim @Bhura v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Wasim @Bhura v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home 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

Gufran Vs State of U.P.

Govind Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Azhar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.