Allowed

Angad Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/59754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench criminal bail application allowed in a POCSO case. Court found absence of reasonable links for refusing bail given consent, delay, no criminal history, and lack of flight risk. Released on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152094

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59754 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Angad Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶7

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.637 of 2022 at Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar under Sections 376, 506, 323, 366A, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 03.09.2022.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 29.10.2022.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Adil Jamal, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar

¶10

Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The delay in lodgment of the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶12

The victim and the applicant were intimate and had a consensual relationship

¶13

The F.I.R. is a result of the relationship going awry.

¶14

The applicant never gave any plighted word to marry with the victim.

¶15

The F.I.R. is being leveraged to force the applicant to marry with the victim.

¶16

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶17

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶18

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant-Angad Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶20

satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Angad Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad Maurya 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

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shadir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khushiram Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Dev Singh Prajapati @ Manchali Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home