Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2022BAIL/37636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The court allowed the bail application filed by Deepak in a case involving IPC and POCSO charges. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions of presence and undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37636 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶7

As per office report dated 12.12.2022 notice has been personally served.

¶8

Heard Mr. Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application. None appears on behalf of informant in spite of service of notice.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Deepak with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 585 of 2018, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Indirapuram, District-Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution case, an FIR has been lodged by father of the victim against unknown persons alleging therein that his 17 years old daughter was missing on 08.02.2018 since 8 o'clock.

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that when the victim came to know that some FIR has been lodged she herself returned and recorded the statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement she states that she left her house on her own sweet will and had gone with the applicant. She has also stated about her marriage with the applicant and had not stated anything negative against the applicant. From the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the relations between the applicant and victim is consensual. As per education certificate victim is major. He further submits that POCSO Act means to protect children from sexual exploitation, not to criminalize consensual

¶12

romantic relationship between them. It is next argued that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2022. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. He also pointed out the criminal history of applicant in one of a petty offence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

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:-

¶16

(i) The applicants 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicants 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.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicants 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 applicants fail 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicants 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

¶20

313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.12.2022 Arti

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P.

Haroon Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Asif Alias Munna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Reshma Vs State of U.P.