Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022BAIL/33346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed bail to the applicant Arif in a criminal case involving enticement of a minor for marriage. The court relied on Article 21 and recent Supreme Court precedents, finding the applicant had made out a case for bail. The order imposes specific conditions regarding tampering, presence in court, and cooperation with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two verified sureties in like amounts, along with seven specific conditions.

Arif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Arif, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 363,366,376(3) IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Kakrauli, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that she has not made clear allegation of rape against the applicant.She has only expressed apprehension of her rape.The victim eloped with applicant and other co-accused on her own free will but has falsely implicated them later.The applicant is in jail since 20.5.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 or to any police ofÏcer;

¶15

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his 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

Order Date :- 9.9.2022

¶19

Atul kr. sri.

¶20

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.10 13:42:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Parvindar Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raukesh@ Rauke Vs State of U.P.