Allowed

Nanhu @ Ramnath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022BAIL/48290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Nanhu @ Ramnath, implicated in a kidnapping and POCSO case. The Court distinguished his role from the main accused, noted his lack of antecedents, and granted release on a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Discharge of applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48290 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nanhu @ Ramnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Nanhu @ Ramnath with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 (2), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 17/18 POCSO Act, Police Station-Ghatampur, DistrictKanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and being the uncle of the main accused Prem has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed the name of the applicant in any manner, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not assigned the role of kidnapping or sexual assault to the applicant. In the first information report also, the main role of enticing away the victim has been assigned to the co-accused Prem and the allegation made against the applicant is of abusing the informant, when he went to the house of co-accused Prem for enquiry about the victim. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from the co-accused Prem. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Prahlad, who happens to be the father of the co-accused Prem has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8th December, 2022. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 4th September, 2022.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as

¶11

the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, 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:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 15.12.2022

¶19

Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.16 10:02:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nanhu @ Ramnath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhu @ Ramnath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jeeshan Vs State of U.P. through principal secretary home And 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Srivas Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.