Allowed

Sanjay Gaur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023BAIL/58605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with attempted rape and offences under the POCSO Act, citing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and significant jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charge.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence, adjournments, and ensuring presence before the Trial Court.

Sanjay Gaur 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. - 58605 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Gaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has been implicated in this case on the allegation of attempt to commit offence of rape of minor girl aged about 12 years apart from allegation under section 504 I.P.C and Section 9M/10 of POCSO Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement of the victim she has only alleged that the applicant compelled her to take his private part in her hand thrice. There is no allegation of commission of offence of rape. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been implicated in this case falsely. He is owner of general merchant shop. On account of dispute regarding purchasing of goods and money, applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 07.09.2022.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶9

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 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Sanjay Gaur, involved in Case Crime No.249 of 2022, under Sections 376A, B/511, 504 I.P.C Section 9M/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 SS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Gaur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Gaur 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

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjiv Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Tamrkar Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh @ Dhunmun and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rambhavan Vs State of U.P.