Allowed

Surendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023BAIL/25033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application by Surendra Pal, charged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC for abducting and trafficking a 15-year-old girl. The court found prima facie that the applicant was not named in the FIR or Victim's statement, had no prior criminal record, and has been in custody since February 2023, making it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Surendra Pal Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123483

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25033 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shree Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant - Surendra Pal for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.6 of 2023, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC registered at Police Station- Gopiganj, DistrictBhadohi.

¶8

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 23.3.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Rajji Devi against the unknown persons before Police Station- Gopiganj, DistrictBhadohi being FIR no.0006 of 2021 on 18.1.2023 under Section 363 IPC regarding commission of offence with an allegation that on 28.12.2022 the daughter of the first informant went missing and in spite of sincere efforts to trace her whereabouts were not traced. He has further submits that though in the first information report the name of the applicant did not find place but in the recovery memo which is at page 24 of the paper book the name of the applicant stood surfaced for the very first time wherein the allegation has been levelled that in the house of the applicant itself the victim was forcefully confined though at that point of time the mother of the applicant was there but the applicant was somewhere outside.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention towards the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which is at page 51 of the paper book so as to contend that the story which has been sought to be generated by the prosecution stands belied as there is no reference of the name of the applicant in that regard. It is further submitted that a different story has been cooked up.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-29 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history and the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 7.2.2023. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that might be the name of the applicant did not find place in the first information report or there is no recital of his name in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. but the fact remains that during the course of the recovery it has come on surface that the applicant had committed offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. However learned AGA could not dispute that the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history.

¶13

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant name did not find place in the first information report as well as his name did not find place in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 7.2.2023, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Surendra Pal involved in aforesaid crime be

¶17

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 :-

¶18

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.6.2023

¶26

piyush

¶27

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

Surendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Pal v. State of U.P.

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

Kamal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Gagan Solanki Vs State of U.P.

Sunil@ Pankaj@ Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Gani Vs State of U.P.