Allowed

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022BAIL/37441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the accused in a criminal case involving sexual offences and obscene material online. Relying on Data Ram, the court held it was a fit case for bail noting the lack of direct evidence against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37441 of 2022 Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.398 of 2021, under Sections 354, 376-D, 341, 506, 34 IPC and 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut.

¶6

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 18.08.2021 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2021 but no plausible explanation has been given. As per high school certificate, the prosecutirix is aged about 21 years. After six months of the alleged incident, the complicity of the applicant has been shown on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Maruf and in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, confessional statement, which has been recorded before the Police, cannot be accepted as the same has no evidentiary value. Except the aforesaid confessional statement, there is no evidence from which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The allegations, as contained in the prosecution case, are nothing but a tissue of lies having been brought forth with the sole intention to harass the applicant. As per statement of the victim, there is no allegation of rape as well as making video viral against the applicant. No allegation of sexual assault has been made against the applicant. No offence under Section 376 IPC as well as 67A I.T. Act is made out against the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2022.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of two cases.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Waseem involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶11

(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 IPC.

¶12

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶14

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.11.2022

¶18

Ajeet

¶19

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.30 16:06:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem v. State of U.P.

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

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheetla Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Khatik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satendra Rajpoot Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sani @ Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P.