Allowed

Manoj Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022BAIL/44358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. High Court granted bail to applicant Manoj Upadhyay charged under Sections 354, 376, 506, 18 POCSO IPC in a case registered at Ghazipur, imposing specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions of attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44358 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Navneet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, the counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 65 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 506, 376, 511 IPC & 7/8 and 18 POCSO Act, Police Station- Suhwal, District- Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that initially the FIR was lodged U/s 354/323/506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act against the applicant. During investigation, the case was converted U/s 376/511 IPC and 18 POCSO Act. It is further submitted that due to scolding by the applicant, the FIR was lodged by the first informant against his father (applicant) at the behest of certain villagers. She refused to undergo medical examination. Although, in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 161 & 164 CrPC she supported the prosecution version. But in the affidavit given by her to the Circle Officer, Ghazipur on 17.9.2022, she denied the entire prosecution story. Thus, no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is in jail since 29.7.2022. Learned counsel further submits that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as the counsel for the first informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the offence is serious in nature and applicant has no ground to be released on bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶10

After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of applicant.

¶11

Bail Application is allowed .

¶12

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

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.

¶14

(ii) 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

(iii) 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

(iv) 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

(v) 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

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Shravan

¶19

Digitally signed by SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 2022.11.29 17:21:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Upadhyay 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

Kunwarpal Singh Vs State of U.P and Another

Shuklawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkaran Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Salma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Manish Bind Vs State of U.P.

Nitish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.