Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023BAIL/17187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case involving Sections 363, 366, and 34 IPC. The court noted the applicant's long confinement and lack of reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158638

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17187 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Azaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

As per the office report dated 04.08.2023, the notice of the instant bail application has been served upon the opposite party no. 4- informant. However, when the case is taken up, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. On behalf of the opposite party no. 2- High Court Legal Services Committee, despite service of notice no one has appeared.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶9

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1316 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 34 I.P.C. and 16/17 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant. It is improbable that the applicant would take the victim to Mussorie and thereafter to another place without any resistance. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that the applicant has not acted indecently or inappropriately with her nor made any forceful assault. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. In all the said cases the applicant has been granted bail. The applicant is in jail since 03.12.2022 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for almost eight months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Amir, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶14

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 SKT/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Vijay @ Mulayam Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh @ Deepa Vs State of U.P.

Lauhar Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Pramadik Vs State of U.P.

Bajrang Singh Shekhawat Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Nemchand Vs State of U.P.