Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023BAIL/49070/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Bindoo arrested under POCSO and IPC provisions. The court noted false implication via a delayed statement, lack of antecedents, and absence of material to prove tampering risk, invoking the principle that bail is a rule.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering, intimidation, absconding, and leaving India.

Bindoo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234831

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49070 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bindoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that notice with regard to present bail application has been served on the informant and further submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report and the First Information Report was lodged with the allegation that the co-accused Ravindra has taken the victim to the room and thereafter has committed sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded after four days where it has been alleged that the applicant has locked the victim and the co-accused Ravindra in one room where after the co-accused Ravindra has committed sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is the relative of the victim and has been falsely implicated on account of family dispute. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the only allegation against the applicant is pertaining to abatement under Section 17 of the POCSO Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the false implication plea taken by the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as the applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.10.2023 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but

¶10

does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶11

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶14

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

10-A. In the present case it is to be seen that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded after four days. The applicant is the relative of the victim and has been falsely implicated on account of family dispute. The only allegation against the applicant is pertaining to abatement under Section 17 of the POCSO Act. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion

¶19

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.

¶20

Let the applicant- Bindoo involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2023, under Sections 342 and 120B I.P.C. and Section 4/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶24

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶25

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.

¶26

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 12.12.2023 VMA

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindoo 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

Sandeep Kumar Saroj @ Bajrangi Vs State of U.P.

Shaukin Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Hasin Vs State of U.P.