Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/11769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant, a repeat offender facing serious sexual offences, citing extreme jail overcrowding and Article 21 rights rather than merit. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with strict attendance conditions and a one-year trial deadline.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions of attendance, prohibitions on tampering with evidence, and a direction to conclude trial within one year.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152246

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11769 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anupama Parashar,Satendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sachin, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2020, under Sections 376DA IPC and 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chhatari, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail for implication under Sections 376D, 506 IPC, 5/6 POCSO Act and 67B I.T. Act. Subsequently, the applicant has been charged under Sections 376DA IPC and 5(g)/6 POCSO Act. Bail application was filed before the court below by the applicant for enlarging him on bail under Sections 376DA IPC and 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, which was rejected. Hence the applicant is before this Court. He has submitted that the applicant been falsely implicated. The applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in earlier bail application. He is in jail since 10.2.2020.

¶10

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 deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Bail is granted in an offence and mere change in Section does not affects the bail granted earlier to an accused in earlier sections.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

¶13

let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶18

(v) 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 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶22

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ishlam Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Firoz Ali Vs State of U.P.