Allowed

Mohd. Haleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022BAIL/7679/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Mohd. Haleem in a criminal case under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The Court held it was a fit case for bail without commenting on merits, imposing strict conditions regarding appearance in court and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including appearance in court and prohibition on seeking adjournments.

Mohd. Haleem Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7679 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Haleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Surendra Mohan Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sonaha, District Basti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per the School certificate as well as medical report the age of the victim is about 17 years. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will. As per medical report, the victim has stated that she knows the applicant since last six years and she had gone with him at Gujrat which shows that the victim is a consenting party. It has further submitted that the applicant has not enticed away the victim. It has further submitted that the incident took place on 30.9.2020. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged on 1.10.2020. There is delay of one month in lodging the FIR but no satisfactory explanation of this delay in lodging the FIR has been given. No offence under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC as well as POCSO Act, is made out against the applicant. As per medical report no injury has been found on the body of the victim. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.10.2020.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a

¶11

fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Mohd. Haleem , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.11.2022

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.24 16:11:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Haleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Haleem 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

Smt Roshani Vs State of U.P.

Soran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Varik @ Vikram Vs Union Of India

Amrish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.