Allowed

Naseema and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022BAIL/5416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons charged with offences under the IPC and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The Court noted the absence of specific allegations against the applicants in the victim's statement and their lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, cooperate sincerely, and not commit further crimes.

Naseema and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5416 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Naseema And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Salma Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Salma Bano, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accusedapplicants/ Naseema and Sita for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 392 of 2021, under Sections 370, 372, 373 I.P.C. and Section 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Police Station Manduadih, District Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution and they were themselves the victims of the circumstances and all allegations contained in the First Information Report are false, concocted, baseless and could not be believed.

¶8

It is further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that on relevant date and time, the police raid was conducted on the house owned by one Munna wherein four girls were found, allegedly involved in flesh trade. Apart from the applicants, two other girls were also found and during the course of investigation the statement of one of the girl, (the identity of which is being concealed) under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had levelled allegations only against one Sujay Kumar Patel imputing that she was abducted by the above-mentioned Sujay Kumar Patel and he has forced her to do the prostitution against her wishes.

¶9

Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant. The victim, whose statement has been recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not imputed any allegations against the applicants and relevant penal sections pertaining to Sections 320, 372 and 373 I.P.C.

¶10

and relevant sections of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act have been slapped on the applicants without there being any cogent and reliable evidence or material available.

¶11

It is further submitted that applicants are languishing in jail in this case since 02.12.2021 and they are not having any criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed without there being sufficient evidence or material and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicants after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicants have committed heinous offence and they have forced the victim to enter into the flesh trade and these two ladies were actually managing the brother's house and, therefore, having regard to the heinousness of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, what transpires from the record is that on relevant date and time the police raid was conducted on the house of one Munna wherein four girls were found including the instant two applicants. One girl is shown to be the victim, who was allegedly forced into the flesh trade and in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has not imputed allegations of any kind against these two applicants. Applicants are languishing in jail in this case since 02.12.2021 and they are also not having any criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed without there being sufficient evidence or material. Presence of applicants could be secured before trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the accused-applicants/ Naseema and Sita involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Praveen

¶21

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.03.23 17:37:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naseema and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseema and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Dhanji Turaha Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhruv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Avinash Bajpai Alias Akash Bajpai Vs State of U.P.