Allowed

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022BAIL/5059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of rape involving a minor under IPC and POCSO, the High Court allowed bail, noting flaw in medical evidence and jail overcrowding, without expressing a view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5059 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

As per ofÏce report dated 15.6.2022 notice has been served personally served upon the informant but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Sections 363,366-A,376(3) IPC and section 3/4(2) POCSO Act Police Station Manchi, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that he has causing rape of minor girl .Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The Medico Legal Report of the victim does not supports the prosecution case at all.The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

¶11

the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.17 10:20:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya 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

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P.