Allowed

Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022BAIL/53404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail for applicant accused under POCSO Act and IPC sections. Court noted police compliance with victim awareness directions under Supreme Court guidelines and cited jail overcrowding during pandemic as a factor, finding merit in applicant's submissions despite not examining merits of the case on record.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53404 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd Faiz, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State contends that police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC. Form A and Form B are also available in the record.

¶7

There is a full compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) by the police authorities of districtMainpuri. The Court appreciates efforts of the police authorities of district-Mainpuri.

¶8

The C.W.C., district-Mainpuri on its part has sent instructions to the Government Advocate that the victim does not need legal aid.

¶9

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 206 of 2021, Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli, under Sections 376-D,323,34,506 IPC and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act.

¶10

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shamli, on 24.08.2021.

¶11

The applicant is in jail since 17.5.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶12

Sri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the medical report, the applicant is a major and 18 years of age. P.W-1 Zabir who is the brother of the victim and the informant in the FIR in his testimony before the trial court refuted the prosecution case as stated in the FIR. He has further deposed during the trial that the applicant did not rape or forcefully assault the victim. The said witness has been declared hostile before the trial court. Further the victim in her deposition before the trial court has also asserted that she was not raped by the applicant. The applicant did not make act inappropriately with her. The victim also denied the statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecution case has fallen apart. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶13

Sri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the

¶14

record. Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant-Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen be released on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2021, Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli, under Sections 376D,323,34,506 IPC and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 22.2.2022

¶26

M. Tarik

¶27

Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.02.26 11:07:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen 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

Boby @ Shamim Iqbal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Aasif Vs State of U.P.

Aman Soni @ Ravi Soni Vs State of U.P and Another

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.