Allowed

Sattar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022BAIL/39647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding sexual offences, the High Court noted the prosecutrix was a consenting adult who lodged the FIR with delay due to family pressure. The court granted bail subject to stringent conditions ensuring presence in court and non-harassment of the victim.

What did the court decide?

Bail released by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39647 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sattar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Matter taken up through video conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sattar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 178 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376, 328 & 315 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Gangoh, District - Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecutrix is a major girl as stated by her in the first information report itself in which she has disclosed her age as 23 years. It is argued that the prosecutrix remained with the applicant for about five months in Himachal Pradesh out of her sweet will. There was no resistance whatsoever by her during the said period. The prosecutrix is a consenting party. As per the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, she has been opined to be of 23 years. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The first information report has been lodged with an in-ordinate delay after the prosecutrix came back to the house under the pressure of her family members. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.6.2021.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and in the statement of the prosecutrix. It is argued that the applicant has been assigned the role of establishing physical relationship with the prosecutrix and therefore, his bail application may be rejected.

¶10

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a major woman. She remained with the applicant for about five months in

¶11

Himachal Pradesh. The first information report has been lodged later on when she came back to her house.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sattar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

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.

¶16

The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶17

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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶20

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 nd

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Sattar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin Makhija and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Murtaza Ali Vs State of U.P.

Noor Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Maubaat Shah Vs State of U.P.