Allowed

Abdul Rahman Qureshi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/36210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application concerns charges of rape and child sexual abuse under IPC and POCSO Act. The court granted bail considering the accused's medical incapacity to commit the offence, clean antecedents, and crystallized evidence.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on depositing personal bond with two sureties subject to specific undertakings regarding court appearance and trial conduct.

Abdul Rahman Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195965

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36210 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abdul Rahman Qureshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ayush Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ayush Kaushik, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Indra Mohan Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Abdul Rahman Qureshi seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of incidents, which are alleged to have occurred in between 10.9.2022 to 3.7.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 18.7.2023 was lodged by first informant/prosecutrix namely X and was registered as Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Vikas has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused on the false promise of marriage extended by him deliberately and repeatedly maintained physical relation with the prosecutrix.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 20.8.2023, yet the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Initially prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C. has supported the F.I.R. However, subsequently, the prosecutrix after gaining majority, inasmuch as the date of birth of the prosecutrix as per High School Certificate is 16.12.2004 has filed an affidavit before

¶12

Court below denying prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Attention of the Court was then invited to the document occurring at page 67 of the paper book, wherein the Doctor has opined regarding the applicant that applicant is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. On the above premise, he submits that the criminality alleged by the prosecutrix could not have been done by the applicant.

¶13

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 20.07.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. i.e. charge sheet has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However. upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial. As such, the custodial arrest of applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶14

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They have, however, neither disputed the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix nor the medical opinion expressed by the Doctor with regard to the applicant. Moreover, they could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, the learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix after gaining majority has submitted an affidavit before Court below denying the F.I.R. itself, as per the medical evidence, which is on record at page 67 of the paper book, applicant could not commit the alleged criminality, clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore, entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above neither the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel representing first informant could point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial,

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant Abdul Rahman Qureshi involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 :-

¶18

(i) 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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶23

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.10.2023/HSM

¶25

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

Abdul Rahman Qureshi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman Qureshi 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

Chandi Das Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Monam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Alias Ajay Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Roopa Gautam @ Swaroop Gautam Vs State of U.P.