Allowed

Nitin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2022BAIL/3293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a POCSO Act and IPC case. The applicant was not named in the FIR or child statements but appeared in a co-accused's confession. The court held that complicity was not sufficiently established, no flight risk existed, and released the applicant on personal bond with sureties and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Nitin on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding contact with victims, tampering with evidence, and cooperation in trial.

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3293 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Perusal of the record would reveal that in compliance of the order of this Court notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 (the informant of the FIR) and as per the report of the office of date 5.3.2022 the same has been sufficiently / personally served. However, no one is present on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Shri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Nitin for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 147/2021 under Section 354 B, 328, 294, 120-B IPC & 11/12, 16/17 POCSO Act & 77 Juvenile Justice Act, Police Station Kotwali District Moradabad, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant except the confessional, additional statement of co-accused Lok Bahadur wherein he has attributed some complicity to the instant applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that the prosecution story as it is reflected from the First Information Report and the statement of the children who were allegedly rescued from the vehicle which was being driven by the co-accused Lok Bahadur is to the tune that at the relevant date and time co-accused - Lok Bahadur was driving the vehicle wherein some children were sitting and the vehicle was apprehended by the informant and her other associates and the driver of the vehicle co-accused Lok Bahadur was apprehended and given in the custody of the police. In the statement of the children recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. imputations were levelled against co-accused Lok Bahadur pertaining to molestation of children. Thereafter on 23.12.2021 the statements of the children under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were

¶12

recorded wherein they have stated the role of another person as an associate of co-accused Lok Bahadur. However, neither in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. they have identified the instant applicant as the associate of the coaccused Lok Bahadur.

¶13

Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that except confessional statement of the co-accused Lok Bahadur there is no iota of evidence or any material available against the applicant, which may connect him with the crime.

¶14

It is further submitted that charge sheet in this case has been filed against the applicant without investigating the allegations of the FIR in right perspective. The applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in this case since 23.12.2021 and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submits that the applicant is an accused of heinous crime and having regard to the provision contained under POCSO Act the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the instant applicant was not named in the FIR and his complicity was also not surfaced in the statements of the children recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. however, in the statement of the children recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. first time one associate of co-accused Lok Bahadur was introduced. However, the children have not identified or named him and it was only in the confessional statement of co-accused Lok Bahadur the identity of the instant applicant has been established as the associate of the coaccused Lok Bahadur. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the identity and role of the applicant in the alleged crime as the associate of co-accused Lok Bahadur has not been sufficiently established. The applicant is in jail in this case since 23.12.2021. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions. He is also not having any criminal history.

¶17

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

The bail application is thus allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Nitin involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not attempt to contact the informant or any of the victim and the violation of this condition alone shall be a sufficient ground for cancellation of the facility of bail being provided to him by this order.

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.3.2022 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.03.22 17:57:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Yadav @ Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Dhanji Turaha Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Dhruv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aashif Qureshi Vs State of Up.