Waseem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3420 of 2023

Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned AGA has informed that notice on opposite party no.2 has been served but no one has turned up to oppose this bail application.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of entering into the house of the victim committing the offence of rape, threatening besides penetrative sexual assault. The victim is allegedly minor.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant is related to the victim. From the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that there is prior enmity and dispute between the parties. The mother of the victim had earlier filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against the applicant alleging that the applicant has promised her to marry the victim 10 years ago but thereafter he has refused to marry and the allegation of rape was also levelled against the applicant, which has been rejected. Subsequently, first information report has been lodged after two years to falsely implicate the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 14.12.2022 and has criminal history of one case pointed out by the learned AGA, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶10

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 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 and 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 and 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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Waseem , involved in Case Crime No.636 of 2022, under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District- Amroha be released on bail on his furnishing a personal

¶12

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.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) 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 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.2.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Alias Brajkishore Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Chintamani@ Munna Mall Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Dohare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others