Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023BAIL/56587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant Haripal, charged with abduction and rape of a minor under Sections 363, 328, 376DA IPC and Sections 5(g), 6 POCSO, in Case Crime No. 213 of 2022. The decision was based on the victim's hostile testimony, jail overcrowding, and the principle of speedier trial mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in a similar amount to the satisfaction of the court, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56587 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haripal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Ram Bahadur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahid Jamal

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List of fresh cases has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the informant.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Bahadur Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Haripal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2022, under Sections 363,328,376DA IPC and section 5g/6 of POCSO Police Station Khandauli, District- Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of abduction of minor girl and commission of rape after intoxicating her.Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial court ,where she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.The applicant is in jail since 20.6.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.,

¶11

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 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

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and

¶19

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.1.2023

¶22

Atul kr. sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripal 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

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Dhanpal Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Vs State of U.P.