Allowed

Neelesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2023BAIL/18478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under IPC and POCSO involving the alleged abduction of a 14-year-old girl, theAllahabadHigh Court granted bail. The court noted the lack of evidence of sexual assault and that co-accused were already on bail, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting refusal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance and no tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104307

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18478 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Neelesh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra,Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged with the allegation that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was forcefully taken away by the applicant and other co-accused and thereafter she was left at the same place after one hour. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim was subjected to statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has stated that she was taken away by the applicant and thereafter they left her and she was not sexually assaulted. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was also subjected to medical examination, however, no external injury was found neither there is any evidence of sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused Amit Kumar (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19528 of 2021) and Rohit (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21121 of 2021) have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶12

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶13

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned A.G.A. that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Neelesh Prajapati involved in Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Sections 342, 363, 366A, 354, 506 I.P.C. and 8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station- Srinagar, District- Mahoba be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(v). 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.

¶23

(vi). The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Sumit Kumar

¶26

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

Neelesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelesh Prajapati 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

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Tarun @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Bhudole and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bunty Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Bullu @ Sanjay Kahar Vs State of U.P.