Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2023BAIL/25505/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant Farzan in a case under Sections 363, 366 IPC, and POCSO Act. The Court granted relief based on parity with co-accused already on bail, lack of FIR naming, no custodial interrogation need, absence of prior criminal history, and the victim's recovery from another accused.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128102

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25505 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Farzan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Farzan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 16/17 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶8

The prosecution case is that one Farman son of Saleem Kasai, who was tutor of the victim, after enticing the victim has taken her to some undisclosed location. On such written report of the father of the victim, the aforesaid FIR was registered against Farman.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR. He further submits that victim was a consenting party with brother of the applicant, and applicant has no concern with the victim. He submits that co-accused Rehaan, Saleem Qureshi, Shahzad and Talib, have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate benches of this court vide orders dated 20.06.2023, 15.06.2023, 02.06.2023 and 12.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25650 of 2023, 24995 of 2023, 25058 of 2023 and 26312 of 2023, respectively; thus applicant is seeking parity. He further submits that the applicant is not required for custodial interrogation by the police. There is no previous criminal history of accused-applicant, and he has been languishing in jail since 07.02.2023. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged the co-accused persons on bail, thus applicant is entitled for the benefit of parity; the accused-applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.02.2023; he has no previous involvement in any other case. Moreover, the victim was recovered from the possession of co-accused Farman. After considering totality of the facts as stated aforesaid, this Court is inclined to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. Therefore, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Observation made by this court while deciding the present bail application are prima facie in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.

¶13

Let the applicant, Farzan 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

(i) The applicant shall co-operate in the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the trial.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 22.6.2023 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farzan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Subhadranand Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Bhola Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Chandni Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar Gupta @ Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.