Allowed

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

Allahabad HC30 May 2023BAIL/10613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving rape and kidnapping. The court observed that the applicant had made out a case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail conditioned by personal bond, two heavy local sureties, and strict undertakings regarding court attendance and awareness of consequences under IPC sections 229-A and 174-A.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120934

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10613 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Kayyum Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Ram Yadav,Sameer Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sabhajeet Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶7

The prosecution story in brief is that Kayyam (applicant) son of Nanad of the informant had committed rape with the informant's daughter who is is handicapped and when she told the incident to her husband, her husband threatened her. Lerned counsel for the applicant submits that no date and time of incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that the victim is major and that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant was committing rape upon her for considerable period and when she became pregnant of seven months, then she told her mother and similar version has also been made in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that in fact, the victim is a consenting party and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to ulterior motive, thus no offence against the applicant is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false

¶8

implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2021 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Kayyum involved in Case Crime No. 257 of 2020 under Sections 363, 376, 506 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

I. 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.

¶13

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each

¶14

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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

IV. 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayyum 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Muneshwar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Surat Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Kevat Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.