Allowed

Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023BAIL/29030/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to Aditya Pandey in a POCSO case citing victim hostility, delayed FIR, and lack of tampering evidence, imposing stringent conditions on his release.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, ensuring presence in court, and avoiding adjournments during evidence.

Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29030 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arurit Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Learned counsel or the applicant files supplementary affidavit today, taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 188 of 2022, under sections 376(2)(N), 342, 506 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The FIR of this case is delayed by 23 days without any explanation. In the medical examination report the hymen was found old torn healed and the statement of the victim under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is contradictory. During trial the P.W. 1 who is victim of the case has not not supported the prosecution version and become hostile. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2022 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for

¶10

bail but admitted the fact that P.W. 1 has become hostile.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C.

¶17

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 25.8.2023

¶22

RPD

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Pandey @ Sonu Pandey 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

Smt. Mandodari Devi Vs State of U.P.

Km. Pushpa Sagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Ram Surat Vs State of U.P.

Babuuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sattar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others