Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 May 2023ABAIL/2115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Subash in a case involving enticement of a minor under POCSO Act and IPC. The court referred to Supreme Court precedent and granted bail on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Subash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2115 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Subash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Awadh Maurya,Kamalesh Kumar Nishad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 30 of 2022, under Sections 363 IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Purandarpur, District Maharajganj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the relative of the informant, is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 22.11.2021. The applicant is stated to have come to the house of the informant on 1.2.2022 and confessed that he had taken his daughter alongwith him and has kept her at Nepal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about four months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim has categorically levelled no allegations against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has been made an accused in the FIR on the basis of false allegations. The applicant himself is a married person.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Subash involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that 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;

¶16

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 3.5.2023\Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Singh @ Shivmangal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nathani Alias Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mukeem and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.