Allowed

Manish @ Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2022BAIL/34978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Manish @ Monu charged with offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. Citing settled legal principles regarding bail, the court held it to be a fit case for release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding interference with witnesses and attendance in court.

Manish @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34978 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manish @ Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan,Indresh Kumar Singh,Shashi Bhushan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Ji Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Prashant Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Manish @ Monu under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 057 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Padari, District Mirzapur, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur vide order dated 8.6.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 21.4.2021 has been lodged by father of the victim against the applicant under Section 504, 506, IPC stating therein that on 21.4.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. applicant entered into the house of the first informant and threatened to kidnap the victim. When the first informant objected, he abused the first informant and his family members. Before this incident, the applicant enticed away the victim and kept with him for five days.

¶8

After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.4.2021. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 24.5.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 4.6.2021. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted on 6.6.2021. The applicant was arrested on 23.4.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due

¶10

to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per school certificate, age of the victim was 17 years 9 months at the time of incident. As per ossification test report, epiphisis of right elbow joint, right wrist joint, right shoulder joint, right knee joint and right ankle joint of the victim were found fused. As per radiological report, age of the victim was above 18 years at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the victim has clearly stated in her statement that she travelled Allahabad and Jaipur with the applicant and stayed with him for five days in a room. It is further submitted that as per allegation of FIR, there is no whisper about the offence of rape with the victim. The age of the applicant was about 22 years at the time of incident.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) As per school certificate, age of the victim was 17 years 9 months at the time of incident on 3.4.2021;

¶15

(b) As per ossification test report, age of the victim was above 18 years on 27.5.2021;

¶16

¶17

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶18

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind,

¶19

the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

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

¶21

(i) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

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

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶29

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶30

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶31

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶32

Order Date :- 4.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶33

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.05.09 11:27:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish @ Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish @ Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Israwati Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another