In a bail application under Sections 376, 506 IPC and POCSO Act, the court observed contradictions in the victim's statement, FIR delay, and violative custody duration, allowing bail citing AIR 2021 SC 712 principles regarding length of custody.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56235 of 2019
Applicant :- Parvesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey,Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
not corroborate the prosecution story as no injury has been observed by the treating doctor. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against 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 29.08.2019, whereby the period of incarceration comes out to be more than three and half years. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated on the ground that the applicant does not have any advocate to represent him at the trial court as is evident from the order sheet dated 01.08.2022, as such he could not cross-examine PW-1, informant. The supplementary affidavit filed today indicates that no witness has turned up after the examination-in-chief of PW-1. Under the present circumstances, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
"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."
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evNidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(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.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case of rape and child sexual offences given the delay in FIR, contradictions in victim statement, and prolonged custody without trial conclusion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. K.A. NajeebReferred¶14
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parvesh
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
