Allowed

Lakkad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022BAIL/54983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Lakkad, an accused in POCSO and kidnapping cases. The court noted contradictions in statements, lack of FIR implication, and co-accused bail as grounds for grant, amidst COVID-19 jail overcrowding concerns.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and cooperating in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54983 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Lakkad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchi Mishra,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Ruchi Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA has made a statement at on the strength of the instruction so received by him that the notice regarding pendency of the present bail application before this court has already been given to the informant/complainant as well as he received a communication from Sub-Inspector Mohit Verma, Investigating Officer, Thana Chaubepur, District Varanasi (rural) according to which service have been affected upon the informant/complainant. However, till the dictation of the present order neither the complainant nor his counsel appears before this Court. Thus the service upon the informant is deemed to be sufficient.

¶7

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2020, Case Crime No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 363, 370 I.P.C. and 16/17 POCSO Act registered at Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Varanasi.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 06.07.2021.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by one Nathuni Prasad before Police Station Chaubepur, Varanaasi being FIR No. 0232 on 20.06.2019 at 22:34 hours u/s 363, 366 IPC referable of the offence on 11.06.2019 at 08:00 hours against unknown person with the allegation that the complainant's daughter being Khushi had gone out from her house and even after lapsing of four days, she did not return back, thereafter the family members have inquired from all the neighbors and relative about her but the whereabouts was not known and on 14.06.2019 she has made a call on her uncle's mobile and told that she was with an adult boy and they have got married. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards page no.

¶10

20 of the bail application being the statement of the informant which reiterates the narration contained in the FIR. He has next drawn the attention of the court towards page no. 23 so as to contend that in the statement of victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the name of the applicant was not taken even in fact the name of her uncle being Pramod came into surface along with Haidar. He next drawn the attention of the court towards page no. 27 which happens to be the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein for the very first time the name of applicant stood surfaced along with Pramod and Sadhu. It was further alleged that the uncle of the victim and Haidar with the aid of the applicant, had sold the victim to a family in Allahabad. He next submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case as his name has been roped in just in order to implicate him particularly when the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He next drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 13 so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history. He further submitted that the co-accused Sadhu @ Ali Haidar has already been bailed out by coordinate bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33845/2020 vide order dated 20.10.2020, therefore the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He lastly submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.02.2020.

¶11

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offence therefore, his name find place in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. but he could dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and the co-accused has been bailed out.

¶12

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as there are contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., his name does not find place in the FIR and coaccused has been granted bail and the applicant does not possess any criminal history and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Lakkad 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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 Nisha

¶25

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.02 14:32:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakkad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkad 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

Baij Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Mujahid @ Soni Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Kumar @ Chotu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Alias Vijay Shekhawat Vs State of U.P.