Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023BAIL/52831/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the second bail application of the applicant, Shiv Kumar, convicted under sections of IPC and POCSO Act. The bail was granted primarily due to jail overcrowding and lack of speedy trial, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137882

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52831 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as infructuous by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.07.2019 which is not available now. No one was turned to opposed the bail application on behalf of applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that irrespective of the allegation made against the applicant before the trial Court, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 34 prosecution witnesses detailed in the charge sheet. The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2014 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; 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.

¶12

Let the applicant, Shiv Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 162 of 2014, under Sections- 376-A, 379 and 411 IPC and 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Nawab Ganj, District- Bareilly, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 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