Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023BAIL/55990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The court was satisfied despite the serious nature of charges and granted bail with standard conditions to appear in court and avoid tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond and heavy sureties subject to specific conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55990 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Imran, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1611 of 2022, under sections 354, 354(Ka), 354(Kha), 354(Gha), 323, 506, 376, 511 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The victim has denied for her medical examination and her date of birth is 26.12.2006. The place of incident is a densely populated place, where CCTV cameras are installed but CCTV footage of the time of incident has not been collected by the I.O. The house of the applicant is behind the house of first informant. According to CCTV footage, the victim was seen with an another man who has not been named in the FIR. and also there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Imran, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.

¶15

(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 15.3.2023

¶20

RPD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Anil Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam @ Shiva Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Nand Gopal Soni Vs State of U.P.