Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2023BAIL/39257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the accused in a POSCO and other crimes case. The court held that despite a prior order to expedite the trial within six months, the proceedings remained delayed, justifying the release to uphold the right to a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178082

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39257 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Beeru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubhi Singh,Akshay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The names of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

¶7

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶8

By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2021 at Police Station- Cholapur, District- Varanasi under Sections 363, 366, 376, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 26.07.2021.

¶9

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 23.01.2023.

¶10

Learned amicus curiae for the applicant submits that from the records, it is evident that the applicant and the victim were in a consensual physical relationship. Nothing from the record discloses that the applicant had given a plighted word to marry the victim. It appears that the victim was a consenting party and the criminal proceedings are being leveraged to force the applicant to marry the victim.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submits that this is a second bail application and the applicant cannot be permitted to raise these grounds.

¶12

Faced with this, learned amicus curiae has advanced the following submissions:-

¶13

This Court while rejecting the bail application directed that the trial be concluded within a period of six months by holding as follows:-

¶14

"However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2021, the learned trial court concerned is directed to get the trial concluded with utmost expedition by observing the provisions of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy/computerized copy of this order, in case there is no other legal impediment.

¶15

S.S.P./S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district concerned are directed to ensure that witnesses are present on the date fixed before the trial Court so that their testimonies may be recorded without there being any hindrance.

¶16

Office is directed to communicate this order to the S.S.P/S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district concerned as well as trial court concerned separately for necessary compliance through email/fax, forthwith. "

¶17

The trial has not been concluded despite orders of this Court. In fact it is evident from the ordersheet that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion.

¶18

The ordersheet also discloses that the victim is not cooperating with the trial proceedings.

¶19

The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial, to enlarge the period of detention of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings.

¶21

Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant. Right of the applicant to a speedy trial has been violated.

¶22

The records available with the learned A.G.A. disclose that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶23

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶24

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant- Beeru be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in districtVaranasi are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶29

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Varanasi shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶30

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Varanasi for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in all legal formalities for being set forth at liberty as stated above.

¶31

Order Date :- 14.9.2023

¶32

Jaswant

¶33

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beeru 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

Dalchandra Vs State of U.P.

Siddhant @ Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar Kevat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramjatan Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manthlal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another