Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023BAIL/21104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Badal, in a criminal trial involving offences under IPC Sections 363 and 376 and POCSO Sections 3/4. The court chose to release him on bail based on uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the trial, one-sided investigation by police, and jail overcrowding, rather than expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions relating to court attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192787

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21104 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Badal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

As per office report dated 7.6.2023, notice on opposite party no.4 has been served personally, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4 to oppose this bail application.

¶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, Badal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 367 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District- Banda, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation of enticement of a minor girl with intention to marry and also commission of offence of rape and committing the offences under Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim claimed her age as 18 years. She has admitted eloping with the applicant on her sweet will and staying with him for three days and has alleged that the applicant entered into physical relationship without her consent. Therefore, his implication under Section 363 IPC is unwarranted. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of S Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, 1964 LawSuit (SC) 209 . It has been submitted that victim herself left the company of lawful guardianship of her parents on her own. The applicant did not took her away from the company of her guardianship. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 27.7.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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.

¶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

¶13

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, 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

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badal 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

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Indal Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Dharkar Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others