Bail application allowed in a case under IPC 354-A, 506 and POCSO Act. Court held applicant made out a case for bail, releasing him on personal bond with two sureties and conditional restrictions.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3620 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajeev Singh @ Bholu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhanath Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Vide order dated 09.02.2022 notice was issued to opposite party no.3 returnable at an early date and as per the report of the office the same has been served personally on the informant, however, no one is present on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accusedapplicant/ Rajeev Singh @ Bholu Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 217 of 2021, under Sections 354-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the F.I.R. in the instant case has been lodged by one Satyendra Singh son of Radhey Shyam, who is shown to be the uncle of the victim. However, the father of the applicant, namly Om Prakash Singh had instituted proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P.L.R. Act against Prem Narayan Singh and above-mentioned Radhey Shyam Singh (who is the father of informant) and others with regard to the dispute pertaining to the boundary of his agricultural field and a copy of the bail order passed therein of date 20.07.2021 has been placed at Page No. 19 of the bail application and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of this enmity.
It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the victim was going with her elder sister and it is highly improbable that in the presence of the elder sister any mischief could have been committed by the applicant.
It is next submitted that there are contradictions in the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and even if the statement of the victim is taken on its face, no specific allegation of any kind has been levelled and it is not evident as to what mischief has been committed by the applicant and in all probability it is a case where the applicant has been dragged in this case on account of previous enmity.
It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 23.10.2021 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not confront the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the fact that the informant side as well as the applicant's side were having enmity and are engaged in litigation and the statement of the elder sister of the victim who was admittedly with the victim at the time of the incident has not been recorded by the investigating officer.
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 of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant/ Rajeev Singh @ Bholu Singh involved in 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:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
Observations made herein-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 25.3.2022 Praveen
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.03.25 13:57:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to bail while he has lodged a case of enmity against the informant's side and faces a Section 7/8 POCSO charge?
Rajeev Singh @ Bholu Singh
State Of U.P.
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
