Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023BAIL/6082/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Sections 363/376 IPC and POCSO Act regarding the enticement of a minor, the court granted bail to the accused, a 19-year-old, noting lack of medical examination of the victim, no criminal history, and affidavits from sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6082 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sultan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 04.02.2023.

¶7

Heard Shri Awadh Bihari Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.1572 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 30.11.2022 at about 6:00 pm. The FIR was lodged the same night at about 10:27 pm.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party. She has categorically denied the allegations levelled in the FIR in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per school certificate, the age of the victim is just above 16 years and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. The applicant himself is a 19 years old boy and is in jail since 03.12.2022 for no fault of him. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has refused to get herself medically examined. The said facts also corroborates the prosecution story. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the allegations have been inflated n the asking of her parents. The said statement cannot be believed at this point of time. 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

¶11

false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is minor but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 , has observed as under:-

¶14

"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."

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the facts alleged and also the fact that there is no medical examination of the victim, 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.

¶16

Let the applicant- Sultan involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

evidence.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan 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

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Satendra @ Tallu Vs State of U.P.

Janak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shakib Vs State of U.P.

Dhanmati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Satya Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.