Allowed

Jeenesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/58944/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application filed by three applicants, real brothers and victims of alleged crimes under IPC and POCSO, was allowed. The court noted the medical report did not support the prosecution case and the victim's statement lacked confidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, cooperation, and court appearances.

Jeenesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58944 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jeenesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Verma,Swapnesh Singh,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that notice has been served upon the informant but no has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶7

Heard Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Swapnesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Jeenesh, Veeresh and Vipin @ Holu, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2022, under Sections 363,458,376-D,506 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Kudhfatehgarh, DistrictSambhal at Chandausi, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation in the First Information Report against named co-accused, Sovender. In the statements of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. and her mother they have made allegations against the co-accused, Sovendar, that he abducted the victim and committed offence of rape.The victim not reluctant to give her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and same was recorded after police had given notice to her. She never made any allegation against the applicants. Applicants are real brothers and residents of same village.Medical report of victim does not supports the prosecution case.Victim is although minor but her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. does not inspires confidence. The applicants are in jail since 25.8.2022 and have no criminal history.

¶10

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

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence,

¶12

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., 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

¶13

Let the applicants be released on bail on their 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

That the applicants 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;

¶18

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this

¶19

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.

¶20

The applicants 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶23

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

Jeenesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeenesh and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra @ Jite Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Abid @ Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Mazhar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanchid Vs State of U.P.

Hinchhlal Sharma Vs State of U.P.