Allowed

Kamaal ( Anwar Kamaal) v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022BAIL/4519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant charged under various IPC sections and the POCSO Act. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to act against responsible officers for failing to submit required forms and adhere to prior directions on victim consultation.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and witness influence.

Kamaal ( Anwar Kamaal) Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4519 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kamaal ( Anwar Kamaal) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC. However, Form A and Form B have not been supplied by the police authorities to the learned AGA.

¶7

Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, is directed to take appropriate action as per law against the responsible officers who have failed to provide Form A and Form B to the learned AGA and failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) and also the orders of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. Lucknow issued in

¶8

compliance thereof.

¶9

It is also contended that no instructions are available from the C.W.C. The C.W.C. has not approached the legal guardians/victim as contemplated in the directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) as well as in the POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Department of Women & Child Development, Government of U.P. shall file a personal affidavit explaining the conduct and the action taken against the concerned officers who have failed to comply with directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) on or before 21.02.2022 before the Registrar General of this Court.

¶11

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 475 of 2021 at Police Station Katghar District Moradabad under Sections 294, 323, 354Kha, 452, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶12

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Moradabad on 07.01.2022.

¶13

The applicant is in jail since 01.01.2022 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶14

Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

¶15

The delay of three days in lodgement of the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution case is actuated by malice. The applicant had made a complaint to the district authorities regarding the noise and environmental pollution cased by the parents of the victims. The proceedings against the parents of the victim have been taken out in pursuance of the said complaint made by the applicant. The instant criminal proceedings are being leveraged in the complaint made by the applicant and the consequent proceedings. No medical report corroborates the allegations of forceful assault on the victims nor is there any evidence to establish forcible enter into the house of the victims by the applicant. The victims made tutored statements at the behest of other family members. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶16

Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶17

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails

¶18

during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶19

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Kamaal (Anwar Kamaal) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 475 of 2021 at Police Station Katghar District Moradabad under Sections 294, 323, 354Kha, 452, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶26

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Dhananjai

¶29

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.02.17 17:54:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamaal ( Anwar Kamaal) v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaal ( Anwar Kamaal) 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

Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sidhnath Vs State of U.P.

Udayveer Sharma@ Gullu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faredhama @Fira Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home 2 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P and Another

Gabbar @ Hrithik @ Subham Prajapati Vs State of U.P.