Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023BAIL/30448/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Sanjeev in a sexual offense and POSCO case following a matrimonial dispute. The court noted inconsistencies in FIR and statements, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of reasonable apprehension regarding tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to appearing on dates and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183002

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30448 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Abhinav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bilal Hasan

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It has been asserted in the paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit that the applicant does not have any criminal history. The said averment has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Bilal Hasan, counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶9

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2023 under Sections 323, 294, 354A, 354B & 120B I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Bhuta, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant is the wife of the applicant. The matter is purely a matrimonial dispute. It is contended that material changes have been made in the statements of the informant, and her daughter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. to aggravate the offence and to save the failing prosecution case. The inconsistencies in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the informant, and her daughter under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2023, having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the

¶13

record this Court prima facie finds that it is a matrimonial dispute. There are major inconsistencies in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the informant, and her daughter under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sanjeev, involved in aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

¶15

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶16

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Bajpai Vs State of U.P.

Anas Alias Popa Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.