Allowed

Saidu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023/15125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application. The court held that charging the applicant under Section 376 IPC, contrary to the FIR and 161/164 CrPC statements, was unjustified. Furthermore, the delay in framing charges and examination of a single witness constituted a clear violation of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Case Crime No. 369 of 2020 subject to personal bond and two sureties.

Saidu Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45285

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15125 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Saidu Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

No one appears for the complainant despite notice. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.369 of 2020 under sections 354Kha, 452, 376, 511 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Tambour, District Sitapur.

¶8

The first information report was initially lodged under section 452, 354 and 7/8 POCSO Act. It is argued that no allegation with regard to offence under section 376 IPC was ever alleged either in the first information report or in the statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., however, the Magistrate while deciding the bail application held that the applicant shall also liable for punishment under section 376 IPC also. The applicant is in custody since 07.01.2021 although the charges has not been framed and there is no likelihood of the trial coming to an end as only one witness has been examined so far. Thus, the provision of section 35(2) of the POCSO Act is clearly violated. He argues that the reasoning recorded by the Magistrate while charging the applicant under section 376 IPC is also wholly unjustified as the offence under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act ip so facto does not attract section 376 IPC. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Considering the statements, the opinion as recorded in the first information report and the fact that there is clear violation of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Saidu Khan be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the

¶12

hearings;

¶13

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶14

(c) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.7.2023

¶16

VNP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saidu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. 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

Furkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mohit Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sahul Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Umesh Dikshit vs Smt. Indra Agnihotri and 5 Others

Jai Prakash Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rishabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and 3 Others