Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2022BAIL/45315/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The High Court of Allahabad, after considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and prima facie case, held that a case for bail is made out. The applicant (Arvind) was found innocent of procreation/rapole charges, was of no criminal antecedent, and has no likelihood of fleeing. Bail granted subject to conditions including appe

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Arvind, be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to appearing regularly and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45315 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval,Dilip Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahid Jamal

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Arvind, in Case Crime No. 198 of 2021, under Sections- 377 I.P.C. & 5G, 5L/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Ramghat, District- Bulandshahr.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 7.8.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; he has been assigned the role of catching hold whereas unnatural sex has been assigned to co-accused Raju; there is no accusation against applicant in statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. except the accusation of catching hold; it is a false implication owing to enmity in between. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶7

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose this fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent and he has not been assigned the role of procto rape.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record as well as considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶9

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Arvind , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶12

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶14

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.1.2022 Kamarjahan

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Praveen @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Shah Alam Vs State of U.P.

Aarif @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Vinod Yadav @ Alok Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Saini Vs State of U.P.

Arman Vs State of U.P.