Allowed

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023ABAIL/6942/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. The court granted bail subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not inducing others, not leaving the country, surrendering passport, and attending specific court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties; various conditions imposed including reporting to investigation officer, not leaving the country, and attending trial cour

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130018

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6942 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Gaur

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dr. Arun Srivastav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.124 of 2023, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S.- Neuria, District- Pilibhit during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and F.I.R. has been lodged by the victim herself against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no medical report of the victim which could show any use of force on the body of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and

¶11

antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(2) 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.

¶15

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Krishna*

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Gulfam @ Arman Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Husain Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahad @ Shahadat Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another