Allowed

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022BAIL/4836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Narendra Singh in a POCSO case involving indecent videos. The applicant argued false implication compared to the principal offender and lack of criminal history. The court found merit in the submissions and granted bail subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4836 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken in the record.

¶6

By means of this second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2021 at Police Station-Malawan, District-Etah under Sections 354(C), 386, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 13.06.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (Exclusive Court, POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etah on 04.08.2021.

¶8

Shri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the prosecution case stated in the counter affidavit, one Hitesh Kumar has been identified as the sole principal offender who had captured and circulated the indecent videos of the victim. The said Hitesh

¶9

Kumar also created a fake facebook account in the name of the victim. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence of creation of any indecent videos or circulation thereof. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the principal offender-Hitesh Kumar who shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant-Narendra Singh 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 subject to following conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.24 13:37:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh 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

Mohd. Afsaar Alias Afsar Vs State of U.P.

Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala Vs State of U.P.

Arun Pratap Singh @ Sachin Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Anothes

Lavpreet @ Labbu Vs State of U.P.

Kamre Alam Khan Vs State of U.P.

Bholu @ Istekhar Vs State of U.P.