Allowed

Tinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023BAIL/44585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this third bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Tinku, convicted under Section 376D IPC and related provisions. Although the charges are grave, the Court considered the applicant's seven-year incarceration, the victim's resiled statement regarding rape, and cited Apex Court precedents regarding custodial length to allow bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions preventing tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.

Tinku Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44585 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai,Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

This is the third bail application. The first and second bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 6.11.2017 and 28.3.2018 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION Nos. - 12943 of 2017 and 6503 of 2018 respectively.

¶7

Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 984 of 2015, under Sections 376D, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act and Section 3(1) 12, 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that after the order dated 28.3.2018 passed by this Court, four witnesses have been examined of which P.W. 4 is the victim. A perusal of the statement of the victim indicates that she has resiled from her earlier statement with respect to the rape committed with her and she has only stated that she was disrobed by the applicant and her modesty was outraged by him. Learned counsel has next stated that as such, the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out, in which the maximum imprisonment of five years can be passed only.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against

¶11

him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2016, as such, he is incarcerated for a period of about seven years and four months. The fundamental rights of the applicant stands violated as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

In the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 712 it has been held as follows:-

¶13

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Tinku involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

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

¶20

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 16.3.2023 Shalini

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku v. State of U.P.

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

Rahul @ Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naraian Vs State of U.P.