Allowed

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept of Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/1172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1172 of 2022, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad enlarged the applicant on bail in a case involving IPC and POCSO charges. The court noted a violation of POCSO Act plea-bargaining provisions and lack of concrete material regarding the victim's age.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-abuse of bail.

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47594

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1172 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.471 of 2021, under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Unnao, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Initially, the F.I.R. in question was lodged as a missing person report, subsequently, the victim gave a statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that she had gone out of her own free will with the applicant. In the said statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she did not support the prosecution story. The applicant is in custody since 10.06.2021 and the statement of the prosecutrix has not been recorded till date, however, charges have been framed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶10

Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the fact that till date even the prosecutrix has not been examined and only charges have been framed against the applicant. Thus, there is clear violation of mandate of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act coupled with the fact that there is no concrete material on record to determine the age of the victim at this stage, as such, the applicant who has no criminal antecedent is enlarged on bail.

¶11

In view thereof, the present bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant- Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu , who is involved

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Piyush/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept of Home 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

Vikrama Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Secrt. Lko.

Govind Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy. Home, Lko and Others

Ashfak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sageer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Sandip Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home