Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/7966/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366(2), and other IPC provisions alongside POCSO, the High Court held bail as the rule. The court found no material evidence of the applicant tampering with witnesses or fleeing, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearing in court and not leaving India.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7966 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shakuntla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the sister of co-accused Prem. As per the first information report, the co-accused Prem has enticed the daughter of the informant from her house along with jewellery worth Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.70,000/- cash. The victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has only stated that the coaccused Prem taken her to the house of the applicant. There is no allegation against the applicant which lays the foundation of offences under Sections 363, 366(2), 368, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 17/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The main role with regard to enticing away the minor girl is against the co-accused Prem. The co-accused Nanhu has already enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 15.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48290 of 2022. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.1.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶9

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶10

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶11

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶12

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶14

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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 Shakuntla involved in Case Crime No.186 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366(2), 368, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 17/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall

¶20

make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

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.

¶22

5 . 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 evidence.

¶23

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Bhaskar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntla 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

Ashfaq Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P.

Arbaz Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Khan Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.