Allowed

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022BAIL/49261/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Sandeep Singh accused under Sections 354-Ka, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The court held that since the victim's modesty was not outraged and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the case was fit for bail despite jail overcrowding concerns during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49261 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, the learned A.G.A, has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.2.2022, sworn by Shiv Kumar Yadav, S.I. P.S. Kharella, Mahoba in paragraph-3 whereof it has been stated that service upon the informant/ complainant has been made. Till the drafting of the present order, nobody appears on behalf of the complainant, and thus, the service upon the applicant is deemed to be sufficient.

¶8

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Sandeep Singh for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2021, under Sections 354-Ka, 506 I.P.C and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station- Kharella, District- Mahoba.

¶9

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 4.9.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Munni Lal in the above noted sections being FIR No. 0084 of 2021 on 13.7.2021 at 15:23 hours relatable to the commission of offence on 17.6.2021, wherein the victim is shown to be aged about 16 years and the applicant along with the nominated co-accused entered the house of the victim and thereafter exhibited indecent behaviour and further committed the act, which could be a step for outraging the modesty. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the victim at page-21 recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein the age of the victim has been shown to be 16 years. However, though it has been alleged that on 16/17.06.2021 at 4:00 p.m, the applicant along with co-accused entered the house and exhibited indecent behaviour, but according to learned counsel for the applicant, the modesty of

¶11

the victim has not been outraged. Learned counsel for the applicant has further sought to argue that the FIR has been lodged on 13.7.2021 though the incident which is being shown to be occurred is dated 16.7.2021 and according to him, FIR has been filed after enormous delay. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention towards paragraph-10 so as to contend that he does not possess criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards counter affidavit filed by the State being DCRB chart at page-8 dated 11.11.2021, wherein two cases including the present case has been shown to be pending against the applicant being Case Crime no. 90 of 2020, under Section 60 of the Excise Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the rejoinder affidavit dated 3.3.2022, so as to contend that he has been enlarged on bail on 24.12.2020 in the above noted case order whereof has been annexed as Annexure-RA1. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.8.2021. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has exhibited the indecent behaviour to the victim, however, he could not dispute the fact that the modesty of the victim has not been outraged and further the fact that the criminal history has been satisfactorily explained.

¶13

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the modesty of the victim has not been outraged, criminal history has been satisfactorily explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.8.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails 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.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application

¶16

is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Sandeep Singh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶18

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.3.2022

¶26

N.S.Rathour

¶27

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.11 12:40:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Saheb Alam @ Doctor Alias Saheb Nut Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Mannu Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Salim Vs State of U.P.