Allowed

Ankur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/25422/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J. allowed bail to the applicant in a rape and POCSO case, citing overcrowding and right to speedy trial under Article 21, without expressing an opinion on merits, imposing bail conditions and directing a six-month trial timeline.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including attendance at trial milestones and a directive to conclude trial within six months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130746

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25422 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Ankur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Tripathi I,Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Shravan Kumar Pandey,Shyam Narain Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Mohan Singh,Mohd. Iqbal Farooqui

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Shri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Indra Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankur, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Babugarh, District- Hapur, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There are allegations against the applicant of committing offences of rape and , penetrative sexual assault against the minor girl.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that allegations against the applicant are only verbal.The medical report of the victim does not supports the prosecution case.She refused to examine herself for determination of her age.Before the trial courtonly two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 18.2.2020 and has no criminal history. Trial will take time to conclude.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the

¶12

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 trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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

¶13

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶22

The registrar(Compliance)of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court within ten days for compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.7.2023

¶24

Atul kr. sri.

¶25

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

Ankur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X- Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelam Srivastava Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Hoteylal Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P.