Allowed

Jeeshan v. State of U.P. through principal secretary home And 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022BAIL/36762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO and IPC sections, the High Court granted bail to the applicant subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of seeking adjournments, relying on Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions for court attendance and no adjournment.

Jeeshan Vs State of U.P. through principal… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36762 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jeeshan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the Court today is taken on record. Learned A.G.A. is directed to get a copy of the aforesaid affidavit uploaded on e-court portal along with this application through e-filing today itself.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Jeeshan a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 430 of 2022, under Sections 193, 211, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 22 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

The present first information report has been lodged by the mother of the victim on 24th June, 2022 at 23.50 hours against one Ranjeet and one unknown person under Section 326-A I.P.C. alleging therein that on 23rd June, 2022 at 07.30 p.m. (in the evening), when her daughter, (victim herein) after doing her work was coming back to her house along with her sister, then two persons, one of which has specified as Ranjeet came on a motorcycle and tried to drag her daughter (victim) and when the victim objected then both the accused poured Acid on her face due to which her face was badly injured and she fell down. When the sister of the victim came to her house and informed about the said incident, the informant and other family members took the victim to the hospital. After recording of statements of the victim, charges sections i.e. 193, 211 120-B I.P.C. and Section 22 POCSO Act have been altered and Sections 326-A, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act have been deleted.

¶9

In the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she knew the applicant very well as he was her friend and they were regularly talking through mobile phone. On the date of incident, at 07.30 p.m. when the victim was returning to her house after doing her work, on the way she called the applicant by mobile phone and the applicant reached there by a red colour scooty. When the applicant advised to her to learn scooty, the victim sat on the driving seat and he sat behind it. Due to high speed, the

¶10

scooty which was driven by the victim met with an accident due to which the applicant has sustained injuries on his knee whereas the victim has sustained injuries on her face, neck and wrist. When the applicant took the victim to the hospital, he said the victim on the way that she would disclose the name of Ranjeet in place of the applicant stating that Ranjeet poured some chemical on her face. On the asking of the applicant she disclosed the name of Ranjeet to the first informant.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further argued that the applicant has no concern with the statements whatever have been stated by the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has never advised the victim to disclose the name of Ranjeet by engineering a concocted story. it is also submitted that it is surprising that the victim who being working girl, gave false statement to the first informant on the basis of which the present first information report has been lodged implicating one Ranjeet, has not been made accused along with the present applicant. Whatever the statements given by the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has not been witnessed by any independent or public witness, when as a matter of fact such incident took place on an open place. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 26th June, 2022. As such the applicant has undergone more than six months of incarceration as on date.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) 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 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

¶21

Sushil/-

¶22

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.16 10:04:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeeshan v. State of U.P. through principal secretary home And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeshan v. State of U.P. through principal secretary home 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

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.

Afjal Warsi Vs State of U.P.

Ramsevak Vs State of U.P.

Suman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kharwar @ Golu Vs State of U.P.