Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022BAIL/34892/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ajmal, accused under Section 354-B IPC and POCSO Act. The court noted discrepancies between the FIR and victim statement, leading to the conclusion that the applicant should be released on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail pending conclusion of trial by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34892 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ajmal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amitrana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankit Kumar Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Amit Rana, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Notice of the instant application has been issued to the informant by means of the order dated 11.8.2022. Office has submitted a report that notice has been served on the informant but nobody has put in appearance to oppose the application.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2022, under Sections 354-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 9M/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Lisadi Gate, District Meerut.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 4.5.2022 at 16:30 hours, alleging that on 3.5.2022 at about 8:00 pm, the applicant had visited the informant's home on the occasion of Eid and he took away the informant's niece aged about 8 years for getting her something from a shop. The applicant took away the minor girl and he saw her with an evil eye and misbehaved with her.

¶9

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the FIR version. However, in the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., some further allegations were leveled which were not there either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR has been lodged after about 20 hours delay and there is no explanation for the same and he has further submitted that discrepancies in the FIR version and statements recorded during the investigation makes the prosecution case doubtful.

¶11

7. Per contra , the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and he has submitted that

¶12

the allegation against the applicant is a very serious and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that an FIR merely alleges that the applicant had an evil eye on the alleged victim and that he misbehaved with her, whereas in the statement there are certain other allegations, which are not there in the FIR and that the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon the applicant in case of conviction in imprisonment of three years, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail pending conclusion of the trial. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant - Ajmal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2022, under Sections 354-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 9M/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Lisadi Gate, District Meerut on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application bail before this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Mini

¶21

Digitally signed by MINI KANAUJIYA Date: 2022.10.21 11:02:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar Mandal Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Alias Pappu Alias Neta Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Yadav Vs State of U.P.